Solar Eclipses are not Caused by the Moon
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 must also be ‘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.
The ‘earthshine’ bombarding the moon at the time of a total solar eclipse would be at almost fifty times brighter than the moonshine on the earth on a full moon night.
The Earth and Moon, to scale, in terms of both size and albedo/reflectivity. Note how much fainter the Moon appears, as it absorbs light much better than Earth does.
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 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 features on 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 causing the 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 bright earthshine….
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Earth Viewed from Moon During Eclipse
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter turned toward Earth in May 2012 to capture a total solar eclipse over Alaska.
About the Author
Madhudvisa dasa My first contact with a Hare Krishna was a most merciful Mataji in Oxford Street, London who sold me a "Higher Taste" cook book in 1984 while I was on holidays there. I started seriously reading Srila Prabhupada's books in Australia 1985 and by 1986 Srila Prabhupada had convinced me "Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead" and "we should surrender to Krishna." I joined the Hare Krishnas in Perth, Western Australia in 1986. Since then I have been chanting Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare, reading and distributing Srila Prabhupada's books and preaching as much as I can. That's my life and full-time occupation now really. I like it more than anything I've ever experienced before. Srila Prabhupada's books are so amazing... Even after reading them all many times they're still fresh and new. They are truly transcendental! That's it really. Now I'm just hankering to once again see the world chant Hare Krishna, dance and feast and float away in the ecstasy of Lord Caitanya's Sankirtana movement as it did in Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. Let the whole world drown in the ecstatic flood of love of Krishna!
Related Posts
Solar Eclipse Australia May 10, 2013 and Rahu →
Dear Madhudvisa dasa,
I was flabbergasted to read your article and your argument seems inescapable. My compliments for your independent thinking.
You write, among other things
“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.”
Could you please tell me where I can find the exact passage in the Vedas where this is said.
You can read Srimad-Bhagavatam for yourself and find it there. In Fifth Canto. But this idea that solar and lunar eclipses are caused by the dark planet Rahu, it is everywhere, that is the Vedic understanding of the cause of the solar and lunar eclipses. You can research it for yourself.
It is stated in the Vedas that the Moon has its own effulgence and it is a cool form of light.
If on a moonlit you stand directly in the moonlight, then step into a shaded area, you feel it become warmer out of the direct moonlight; 8*-10*F warmer.
If you take and magnify the moonlight the temperature will register 8*-10*F colder.
Where is it stated in the Vedas that the moon has its own source of light?
So, I have seen a total eclipse of the sun, and you are correct that the moon’s surface is not illuminated at that time. However, I am not skilled in the mathematics involved, as apparently you are not either, since you do not give detailed mathematical proof. This leaves an uncertainty. Your assertions, while logical as far as they go, require a rigorous application of mathematics, physics, optics, and biophysics of the visual system, to determine if they are actually correct. Is there no one with such mathematical skill interested in making this determination?
Common sense would dictate that, if the model is as it is proposed, the face of the moon would have to be illuminated by the brilliant earthshine which is falling on the same face of the moon we are observing during the time when the moon comes in front of the sun. At that time the moon’s surface is dark, but the moon is experience a “Full Earth” which is up to 100 times brighter and more intense than the Full Moon we experience on earth. If you take into account the difference in reflectivity of the earth and the moon, full earth is at least 10 times brighter on the moon that a full moon is on the earth.
So anyone with even a tiny bit of common sense can conclude that the current model proposed by science is incorrect as we do not experience any perceivable illumination on the moon as a result of the brilliant blazing effulgent full earth that is blaring down on it.
How can the brilliant earthshine not illuminate the surface of the moon? It is impossible. So this is absolute proof that the currently accepted Earth-Sun-Moon model is completely wrong.
It requires common sense, not mathematics. You can prove any false thing with mathematics.
I am familiar with the mathematics involved, and have performed the calculations, and can show proof that they’re correct.
First: the earth side of the moon during a total eclipse is indeed illuminated by earthshine as Dasa claims it should, but
Secondly: Physical evidence AND the mathematics prove that the illumination of the moon caused by earthshine is so greatly glared out by the corona that unaided vision and casual photography not specifically designed to see it CANNOT see this faint illumination when it strikes the earth. Which you could more easily if the sun’s corona wasn’t present.
Third: photographic evidence DOES show that when exposures are very carefully set, and the photos enhanced, that the illumination is indeed visible. You can EVEN pick out a faint outline of the earth’s continents!
Fourth: Dasa claims that the physical evidence (item three) is faked. That’s what science deniers do when they’re presented with irrefutable evidence, along with long-winded conspiracy tales about evil doers that are out to eat them personal.
The math is actually fairly simple: find the albedo of earth, from that multiply the measured light wattage that strikes the earth (of about 1000 watts per square meter), factor in how that will spread out from the earth to the moon and calculate how much of that would be reflected back by the moon by its albedo and how much *that* spreads out on the way back to earth and calculate how much light that is.
It works out that the light hitting the earth after bouncing off the earth, and then bouncing off the moon again back at the earth is a factor of about 700 times lower in intensity. You can see it without something bright just beside it. There’s no chance of seeing that with your eyeball when it’s adjacent to the Sun’s corona. The same reason you can’t see stars that are right beside a street light.
Dasa’s “common sense” demonstrates a complete disregard for the notions of “intensity” and “visibility”. Sure there’s light. You just can’t see it because it’s too dim to see it. That’s common sense too. The mathematics just proves it scientifically.
Hare Krishna Chris
Yes. Your points are well taken and very logical. Maybe correct of course. I have seen also, there is a huge collection of photos of the moon done by google, they used to have a website for it but it seems to be gone now:
http://www.eclipsemegamovie.org/
Anyhow I downloaded those thousands of eclipse photos and checked them and there are some in there where you can adjust the brightness and contrast and you can see the features on the moon. You are mistaken in being able to see the continents of the earth reflected on the moon. That is not likely. But certainly, at least in the eclipse images supplied by google you can adjust and see the faint outlines of moon surface. Which is what you would expect to see.
So I do not dismiss this possibility.
My attempt in this post is to present the possibility that it may not be the earth’s shadow causing the eclipse, but may be Rahu, coming between the moon and the earth.
But if we can actually see the moon’s features during the eclipse, which is demonstrated by a number of photos you can search for on google, and a number of the photos in the google eclipse megamovie collection, then it can not be Rahu coming in front of the moon…
So I am just exploring the alternatives to determine the truth.
And when I get a chance I will try to take the photo myself also, of the features of the moon during the eclipse.
So yes. What you say is very reasonable and may be correct. I am investigating other possibilities, but your suggestion is certainly the most obvious explanation of what we see.
You certainly dismissed the scientific explanation when I first raised it, and dismissed the photographic evidence as fake produced by some vast conspiracy against Krishna (which most westerners have never heard of, let alone Rahu. Even if they did, wouldn’t feel it necessary to expend a big effort of manufacturing fake evidence) oh, about a year ago.
I have to give you credit, because you did actually listen to me well enough to do some research of your own.
Note that the earth’s continental outlines showing up in moonshine was not related to eclipses, because photography trying to show that level of photonic subtlety in the glare from the corona requires a degree of difficulty that no-one could accomplish without great expense (eg: hideously expensive photographic gear) and exceptional knowledge in selective filtering, optics, and photographic exposure control, not to mention having to wait years between opportunities. Who knows, maybe you’ll be able to photograph earthshine without having to enhance it.
I must confess I remain forever baffled why someone trying to promote a particular culture would rather ascribe something amazing to god (or in some cases aliens), when instead their own ancestors did or explained it centuries earlier.
If I wanted to promote my culture, I would glorify my cultural ancestors over some god or aliens any day.
Since the details of the moon can be observed even during a total eclipse with careful photography, exactly where the moon is predicted to be by orbital mechanics, what place is there for Rahu? If Rahu was visible with a duplicate of the moon’s outline during an eclipse, why do we not see Rahu’s shine when it’s not eclipsing the sun? Some magical switch? That’s an impressive switch that can control the whole image so that it appears visible and not visible at different times for observers in different places. Even if there was no earth shine and the photographic evidence was fake, that would mean that essentially impossibly, Rahu CANNOT reflect earth shine. But if it was a solid object, it would be visible in SOME electromagnetic spectrum unless it was at zero degrees Kelvin/non-reflecting black no matter where it was in the sky. Yet again, the background radiation indicates an average of about 4 degrees kelvin, with hot spots corresponding to other objects like stars, planets, comets etc. To be invisible, it’d have to mimic that pattern exactly, yet be different when viewed from different places.
I would encourage you to consider trying to reproduce the earthshine during an eclipse. Be prepared to spend hideous amounts on photographic equipment and travel, and a LOT of time learning the details of optics, filtering and exposure control. And also being patient. It’ll be years between opportunities to try.
Or you can take existing photography that wasn’t intended to disprove theories like Rahu, and coax it to reveal this level of subtlety that has solid, basic, science behind it that has a history of centuries behind it, having roots in Indian science dating back to the 5th and 6th centuries BC.
Hi Chris.
I do not agree with your model, all I am saying is, yes, I agree with your points, and understand where you are coming from. And I have considered all the points also. My position has not changed. My source of knowledge is the Vedas, not my imperfect senses.
This point you have not grasped. We are perceiving everything through our imperfect senses. So because our senses are imperfect, our perceptions are also imperfect. So things are not necessarily in reality the same as we perceive them. We make so many assumptions, that may or may not be correct.
So I accept knowledge from the Vedas, although, in the case of the structure of the universe, etc, I do not comprehend that sufficiently to use it to explain our actual observations.
So right now, as I have said in other places, I am not in a position to explain it to you, because I do not properly comprehend it myself.
However I have seen enough and comprehend enough to be convinced that the currently accepted model is wrong in many very fundamental ways.
So anyhow I will study these things in more depth and perhaps in the future will be able to comprehend it better and maybe even explain it and relate it to our actual observations.
There is Rahu, and it is Rahu that is causing the eclipses. Exactly all the details I do not know, but this is the knowledge we get from the Vedas, and this will, in the end, turn out to be correct.
From what I have gathered so far what we are seeing in the sky is certainly not what we imagine it to be. There are mirrors, big mirrors, and the rotating thing is in the center and it is projected out onto the mirrors. And it is that thing in the center that is rotating and all the stars, planets, etc, they are all situated on that rotating thing in the center and are projected out on this screen. Dome if you like.
So the description in the Vedas is we are in some sort of a simulation. And that is the same conclusion that your Physicists have come to. So don’t be too quick to dismiss the Vedic conclusions. They are correct. It is our inability to comprehend them that is the problem.
So in reality the universe works in a TOTALLY different way actually to the way you imagine it does.
It is a simulation, and maybe it is designed to trick you to think you are on a tiny blue globe spinning in space billions and trillions and trillions of miles away from any other place where there could be living beings.
But our information is the reality is quite different from the illusion you are presented with.
So the thing is the Vedas is giving the description of the reality but we are seeing the illusion.
It is a projection, and we are fooled by the projection, the illusion, but the actual reality, how the universe is actually working, that is described in the Vedas.
Spinning flying pear world believers are funny 😀 They think the world is a spinning flying pear with everyone all sideways and upside dwon to each other 😀 LOL.
I think it funny that you completely ignore the context of the word “pear” – obviously an extreme and humerous exaggeration, as they have explained countless times since. The North-South diameter is only 40 km shorter than the equatorial diameter by real physical measurement, and the “pearishness” is even less. Percentage wise, and visually, it’s LESS out of round than a billiard ball. Besides, which pear? Asian yellow and brown pears are spherical. Many Nakh pears are round, and have been grown in India for centuries after originating in Japan and China. You show your western bias by thinking of Bartlet or Anjou. Besides, astronomy proves that faster spinning objects DO flatten. Just in the case of Saturn, the spin flattening approaches 10% because Saturn spins so much faster and is so much bigger than the earth, and other stellar objects are even flatter. Basic centrifugal force. You see it even in car tires.
As for sideways and upside down relative to each other, it has to be by the most basic of physical laws. If you think otherwise, you’re going to have to explain why your magical flat earth can possibly exist using real, not imaginary, or magical physical laws.
Oh, and yes, I looked up Mount Sumeru. You think it’s the central axis of the flat earth. By “axis”, that would mean it spun around it. If that were true, the stars directly overhead would never move, but I’m afraid they do, the true pole is at the north geographical pole – which actually points (almost perfectly) at Polaris. Furthermore, if the earth was flat, and spun around that point, only at Mount Sumeru could you stand straight up, everywhere else you’d have to lean towards Mount Sumeru to keep your balance, and by the time you were out at the edge, you’d have to lay on the ground with your feet dug in to keep from being slipping off the edge. Does it? I live about as far as possible you can be from Mt Sumeru, and I assure you, I don’t, and I’m perfectly upright. Except when I’m asleep, and I should be now, so good night.
The earth is not a globe. Look up Mount Sumeru, Jambudvipa, etc. The globe earth theory is a deception done by the Asuras, Phani, Rakshasas, Manushyas, Amanushyas etc to try to defeath the Devas.
I can assure you that Pythgoras and Eratosthenes never heard of the Mount Sumeru, Jambudvipa, or the Asuras, Phani, Rakshasas, Manushyas, Amanushyas let alone the Devas. I also highly doubt that the Japanese engineers who designed and launched the Himawari series of geostationary satellites that take a full hemisphere photograph of the earth every 10 minutes had heard of them either. Nor the NOAA/NASA/JPL engineers that put up GOES 16 and 17 and Discovr missions, nor the Russians who put up Elektro-L. Faked? Physically impossible. Period. There are hundreds of ways of proving the earth’s a globe, many you can do yourself with a pair of eyes, or at most a straight-edge.
Would advanced space craft be able to take us to visit far away planets or can we do this through meditation?
Hare Krishna Bhakta Billy
In this age of Kali there is no interplanetary travel. So no. We will not be able to travel to other planets in advanced space craft. It is possible. There are personalities who can travel freely to any planet in the universe, like Narada Muni, for example, a transcendental spaceman. He simply plays on his transcendental instrument, the vina, and in that way he can travel to any place in the universe. And there were Vimana’s, space ships, that enabled travel to different planets. But that is not the way now. The way now, if you want to travel to another planet, is to meditate on the deity in charge of that planet and think of him at the time of death and you will take your next birth on that planet in a body that is suitable to live on that planet.
The problem is to live on a material planet you need a material body that is suited to that planet. Our bodies are suited to living on earth, but on the other planets the atmospheres are different so we can not live on other planets with these bodies that are meant for living on earth. So if we want to live on other planets then we have to change our body and take birth on the other planet in a body suitable for that planet. And that process is described in Srila Prabhupada’s book, Easy Journey to Other Planets. That is travelling to other planets by the yoga system.
But it is not a very good idea, trying to travel to other material planets. Because on every planet in the material world the same problems of birth, old-age, disease and death are there. So, sure, on the higher planets you can live a very long life and enjoy material facilities far better than what is available on this earth planet. But still you will get old, sick and die, and when your stock of pious activities is exhausted you will have to take birth again on this earth planet and again and again and again endlessly go through this painful, tedious cycle of birth, old-age, disease and death. All suffering. All pain.
So an intelligent person will understand that the material world is just all suffering. And he will understand that actually he is not material, he is an eternal spirit soul trapped in a material body, and he will understand that if he thinks of Krishna at the time of death then he will be transferred to Krishna’s planet after leaving this material body and in Krishna’s planet he will get his original eternal spiritual youthful body full of ever-increasing knowledge and bliss. That is our actual home, the spiritual world. That is the only place we can actually be happy.
So Chant Hare Krishna, go back home back to Godhead, and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Prabhu, your reply to Mr. Chris sounds very reasonable. Corona during totality is nowhere bright as like he tried to make it looks like. Or much more dimmer than daylight in around sunset, where even in that bright light we can see earthshine what to speak of corona which can’t even supersede dim light of stars.
Hare Krishna Prabhu,
Dandavat Pranams. All glories to Srila Prabhupadha.
But somehow these material scientists tell the following reasons for the moon is not visible.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/16/why-you-cant-see-the-moon-during-a-total-solar-eclipse/#41cd283b7d8c
please check once. But, I didn’t mean Rahu and Kethu are there. Yes they are only one doing this eclipse in the form of shadow but materially reason behind the shadow explained above.
Hare Krishna Prabhu
I can not read the article because forbes are blocking it from me. The point is, if the earth-moon-sun model is as the scientists think it is at the time of the solar eclipse the moon would be experiencing a ‘full earth’, it would be illuminated by the earthshine at least ten times brighter than the earth when it is illuminated by a full moon. So it is not possible, if the scientists are correct, that the moon could be dark during a solar eclipse. It must be illuminated by the earthshine. Of course not very bright like on a full moon, but at least bright enough so we could make out the craters, etc.
So because the moon is not illuminated at the time of the solar eclipse then it means the cause of the solar eclipse is not the moon coming in front of the sun. Otherwise we would be able to see the moon illuminated by the earthshine.
Wrong! This is bad science. Solar eclipse is only experienced at a particular locality on earth – those who stay within the 167 miles circle. Anyone else observing the moon on a different vantage point would not experience the solar eclipse. This is simple science. In a dark room, if a shadow is cast on me by an object which is illuminated behind by a light, all I’ll see is a dark silhouette of the object with a light outline. The earth at this 167 miles circle is unable to reflect light as it is already cast over with darkness, Thus the earthshine is simply not present in this 167 miles locality to enable one to see the moon.
You do not understand the point at all. Think of being outside at night when there is a full moon and a clear sky. The whole earth is illuminated.
So at the time of the solar eclipse if you were on the moon you would be experiencing a ‘full earth’ and the entire dark part of the moon would be being illuminated by the earth shine. And the earth is much bigger than the moon and it reflects much more light than the earth does. So it would be at least 10 times brighter on the moon due to the earthshine than it is on the earth on a full moon night.
So the point is that at the time of the solar eclipse it is the moon that is being flooded with light from the earthshine, sunlight reflected off the earth back to the moon. Earth is acting like a big mirror reflecting the sun’s light back on the moon. So, if the ideas of the scientists are correct, the moon must be illuminated by the earthshine at the time of the solar eclipse and we should be able to see the details on the surface of the moon. But we can’t. So there is some problem with the scientists model.
And if you had actually paid attention, you would have known that astronomers CAN see earth shine on the moon during an eclipse, but without exposure adjustments, it’s blotted out by the glare of the corona which is thousands of times brighter than earthshine.
Wait until dark. Hold a ball up in front of a blinding light so that some of the light is still visible. Now light a candle in front of the ball.
Do you see the candle light?
No.
Carefully adjust exposure, you can.
No problem with the scientist’s model, it works perfectly as can be proven with such high technology items as a human eyeball and a candle.
It’s absurdly simple to prove. You really do need to stop making up stuff and ignoring the real world around you.
So if this is true do it yourself and prove it or disprove it for yourself.
Next total solar eclipse you can just go to Chile or wherever it is in South America end of 2020 and do it, take a picture of the moon setting the exposure for the earthshine, not the corona, and see if you get to see the moon or not.
I do not know, but if it is true, then obviously you are correct, it should be this easy. But I suspect if you do it you will still not see the earthshine on the moon…
But I do not know for sure. I am just pointing out the discrepancy between our actual observations and what the model predicts. Model predicts a bightly-lit surface of the moon, at least 10 times brighter than full moon on earth, that is very bright, and should actually be visible by the naked eye even with the corona behind the moon. But it is not. This is a problem with the model. It is not what we would expect to experience, according to the currently accepted model.
This is science, this is not dumb or made up, it is just testing the model and in this respect the model fails which points to some error in the model.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
I’ve already explained why the model does not predict that earth shine will be 10 times brighter than moonshine. You’re forgetting that we’re not sitting on the moon seeing the light specular- reflect just once, but on earth, seeing the light specular-reflect *twice*. Each reflection reduces the light intensity by a factor of several hundred. Now if the earth and moon were parabolic reflectors, the light loss would be VERY MUCH smaller. But they aren’t.
This is basic optical science. Stop ignoring it.
I don’t have to go to Chile to see earthshine on the moon during an eclipse. There are already photos of it. Which I’ve already pointed out to you. But you claim they’re fake without any evidence. Why should we believe anything you say anyway? You’re ignoring science. You’re ignoring proven facts. You make up conspiracy theories “out to get you” and have no evidence whatsoever to back it up. That’s the description of a religious crackpot.
Hi Chris
Scientists who have thought about it do predict that the earthshine on the moon will be more than ten times brighter than the moonshine on the earth and you have NEVER explained why this would not be the case, because it has to be the case, according to the currently accepted model. 10 times brigher is quite conservative, it may be considerably brighter, according to the current theory.
And today with digital photography and photoshop you know very well that the fact that there are a few “photos” of something does not prove that the thing actually exists. It is so easy to fake photos these days.
Because there are a few “photos” that does not make it a proven fact.
I have pointed out a very valid problem with the current model which predicts that the moon should be illuminated by the earthshine at the time of the eclipse and it does not appear to be, it appears to be completely dark.
I accept you may be correct, but I am just making the point that there is a possibility also that the assumptions underlying the current model may also be incorrect.
We do not know these things for sure, they are theories, not absolute facts. And many of the currently accepted scientific theories may be incorrect or incomplete. And if we are actually interested in science we have to be open to the possibility that there could be mistakes in scientific theories.
I have not made up anything, I do not have any conspiracy theories. I completely understand the current scientific model and it is the obvious conclusion to come to based on our observations. I do not believe anyone is conspiring to mislead us about the workings of the universe, shape of the earth, etc. The conclusions of science are quite reasonable considering the observations we have to work of.
What I am saying is, through the ancient Vedic texts from India, I have access to another model, which admittedly I do not properly comprehend at this time, still it is a very detailed model and it provides a different mechanism to explain the occurrence of solar and lunar eclipses than the one presumed by modern science.
The reality is that scientists can only observe the workings of the system from our limited perspective on earth and may, because of lack of information, have come to some erroneous conclusions. Even you have to admit that is a possibility.
Chant Hare Krishna and and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
This interface is not showing a reply button to your last comment, so it’ll appear placed under your previous comment. Lousy interface.
Yes, the scientists have predicted what you said. But, you didn’t understand precisely what they meant NOR the implications of what we would see from the earth. I explained the implications THREE times, but you ignored or discarded what I said as the explanation.
I’m going to try once more, including a highly detailed, but only slightly “mathy” explanation. If you refuse to acknowledge it again, I’m gone, good luck with your delusions, try not to damage the brain of too many of your followers.
The scientists said that earthshine seen from the moon would be 10 times greater than moonshine seen from the earth. That DOES NOT mean that earthshine would be 10 times greater than moonshine when seen from the earth.
In other words, if you were standing on the moon, the earth would look 10 times brighter than if you were standing on the earth looking at how bright the moon was. Again: It does NOT mean that earthshine seen from earth would be 10 times brighter than moonshine seen from earth.
What the scientists said is because of two obvious things: the earth is bigger than the moon, and the earth reflects sunlight somewhat better than the moon. Don’t need scientists to tell you that, it’s bloody obvious. All the scientists are doing is running the numbers to get your factor of 10, rather than some other factor.
You could do the math yourself with a few web searches to find the albedo (reflectivity) figures. Sooo easy.
With me so far?
As I said before, what they didn’t say is what earthshine on the moon would look like to us on the earth.
For a lunar person, earthshine is light reflecting off the earth hitting their eyeballs.
For an earth person, moonshine is light reflecting off the moon hitting their eyeballs.
But for an earth person to see earth shine on the moon, it has to reflect off the earth, hit the moon, and reflect AGAIN to hit our eyeballs back on earth.
Are you still with me? I hope so because it’s amazingly simple and obvious.
Okay, let’s talk about reflection. Reflection of light depends on, surprise, reflectivity. It can range from zero (the object appears black) to 100% (the object appears just as bright as the original source). Now another factor to consider: diffusion of reflection. A mirror is smooth, with almost 100% reflectivity- each light beam smoothly reflects at a specific angle and for the most part retains its intensity (we don’t need to talk inverse square law for this example). Aka: low diffusion – light beams remain relatively intact, just bouncing off in a predictable angle. Better still, if the mirror is parabolic, you can concentrate the light and the beam not only gets narrower, but more intense – to the intended target, the reflected light looks *brighter* than the light source. A clear lightbulb means you can see the light emitting filament in great detail, and the filament itself is VERY bright. As is the idea behind a photo flash – the cone behind the bulb is a parabolic mirror that attempts to direct all light as narrower beam of light out the front, rather than in all directions to make the desired light (hitting the target) as bright as possible, without wasting the light in the wrong direction.
At the other end of the diffusion scale is that scrambles reflection angles, and causes the beam to diffuse. If you took that mirror, crushed it into teeny tiny little bits, a light beam bouncing off it doesn’t remain a beam, it sprays all over the place, and any nearby eyeball sees less light because the rest of the beam missed it. This is also the reason for frosted lightbulbs – the filament is just as bright, but it’s frosted so the light goes all over the place (in fact, appears to be coming from the whole glass shell). The max intensity of light is much lower, looking at the light bulb doesn’t hurt, and you can’t see the filament anymore. This is why light aborbing surfaces (like a darkroom or a ninja suit) are not only black (to reduce reflectivity) and matte (to diffuse any stray reflections that actually do occur).
Dirt, lunar regolith, finely crushed glass is such a reflector. Diffuse. Every beam of light hitting it is scattered all over the place – in fact, over the entire hemisphere of the moon, not all neatly aimed at your eyeball. This is called “spectral reflection” – it’s a good reflector, but the reflected light scatters all over the place.
Got it? Still real simple and obvious. You can play with a mirror, a reflector from a flashlight, and a handful of finely ground glass dust and see this effect yourself. Or compare the visibility of matte black paint compared to glossy black paint.
Okay, back to the earth and moon:
Both the earth and moon receive roughly the same intensity of light per square meter from the sun. The lunar surface material (regolith – very find (small) granular/dust material) doesn’t reflect very well, and it diffuses the light that hits it all over the place.
In contrast, most of the earth’s surface is water. it reflects better than regolith, and it’s a lot smoother than regolith, so more light and less splattering.
Okay?
Now a teensy bit of math:
After all is said and done, the light that hits us after reflecting off the moon is approximately 1/700th of full daylight on the moon (or earth). Since the earth is a better reflector, the light hitting the moon from reflecting off the earth is more – 1/70th of full sunlight (10 times factor), just like the scientists said.
But you’re not standing on the moon, looking at the earth are you? You are on the earth looking at the moon, seeing light reflected first off the earth, and then off the moon again.
So, first, the light hitting the earth is reduced by a factor of 70 bouncing off the earth. Then it bounces AGAIN off the moon, and is reduced by a further factor of 700.
So, no, earthshine on the moon, to us people on earth, is NOT 10 times brighter than moonshine to us. It’s actually 70 times LESS bright.
Trivially simple. A child would understand this. You can demonstrate it to yourself with a flashlight, dark room, and a couple pieces of cardboard.
Get it now? Yes? No?
You may not like the explanation, you may not believe it, but I have answered it in the correct way (without getting overly detailed/mathy), and you cannot deny that I explained it.
In fact, this is the fourth time I’ve explained it.
Chris you are really stupid.
Why explain the same rubbish 4 times? Why not think before you write?
All of my emails are completely clear and any fool could understand them but for some reason you fail to grasp the most simple concepts?
The earthshine reflected from the moon must be at least 10 times brighter on the moon than the moonshine is on the earth. That is the point. It is actually not 10 times, it is 50 times brighter, but I have reduced it to 10 times to make it VERY CONSERVATIVE. Because even though there is about 50 time more light hitting the moon from the earthshine however the reflectivity of the moon is less than the reflectivity of the earth, according to the scientists, so I have reduced from 50 times brigher to 10 times brighter to adjust for this, which is more than enough. So 10 times brighter is very conservative.
Moonshine on the earth is the sunlight reflected off the moon to the earth.
Earthshine on the moon is the sunlight reflected off the earth to the moon.
I am not saying that the earthshine on the moon is going to light up the earth…
I am saying the earthshine on the moon is going to light up the moon at least 10 times brighter than the moonshine lights up the earth.
We know if you observe the earth from above, you can do it even from a mountain, on a full moon night, then everything is illuminated. And if you viewed the earth from a satellite or a plane or from the moon on a full moon night you would see it illuminated by the moonshine. All details of the earth would be clearly visible from the moon on the full moon night.
Now at the time of the solar eclipse the moon is illuminated at least 10 times brighter than the earth is on the full moon. So during the solar eclipse, if the theory of science is correct regarding the eclipses, the moon can not appear dark at the time of a solar eclipse. It has to be illuminated by the earthshine.
And it is. Although the solar eclipse is really the only time this earthshine on the moon should be very clearly visible, solar eclipse is the perfect opportunity to see the moon fully illuminated by the maximum possible earthshine in a totally dark sky, the moon is still partially illuminated by the earthshine for the next few days. And we can observe that quite clearly even with the naked eye. But the viewing conditions are very bad for this as at the time of the eclipse [the no moon day] the sun and moon rise and set together. So on the new moon day they are still rising and setting fairly close, but sun sets slightly before the moon sets. So even in that short time when the sky is still fully illuminated, thousands of times brighter than during the totality of the eclipse, you can clearly see the moon is illuminated by the earthshine with your naked eyes.
So, if the accepted model is correct it is impossible for the moon to appear dark in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. And if it does appear dark it is not the moon, it is Rahu coming in front of the sun, not the moon.
Of course everyone will assume it is the moon, because that is exactly where the moon is in the sky at that time, so people of course assume it is the moon, but it is not the moon, if it was the moon we would be able to see it. It is Rahu actually. At least that is how the eclipses are described in the Vedic literatures.
And our observations at the time of the solar eclipses support the Vedic version, not the model proposed by science.
So what I am saying is completely correct, according to the model of science the moon can not appear dark in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. Moon is, at that time, flooded with the maximum amount of earthshine, at least ten times brighter as the earth would appear from the moon during a full moon would appear from the moon. But this would normally happen during the day, when the sun is in the sky, so certainly with the sun in the sky that would overpower the moon, but during the totality of a solar eclipse almost all the light of the sun is blocked, providing the perfect opportunity to view the moon brilliantly illumiated by the maximum amount of earthshine at least 10 times brighter than the earth would appear from the sky on a full moon night.
This is correct, and if this is not observed, the moon being illuminated during a solar eclipse, then that means there is something seriously wrong with the currently accepted model of how the eclipses work.
So don’t just reply with the same old rubbish. Think before you type.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Prabhu , why don’t you post up about 2020 eclipse . Prabhu , I was waiting for it for a very long time
Hare Krishna Satyajit
It was too far away, I was not able to go to it.
The next one in Australia is 2028…
There is a very short [1 minute only] one in Antartica in December this year. But it is too short and no way to get there anyhow.
So maybe it will have to wait till 2028…
You’re still ignoring simple realities of optics. Place a small ball in front of a light that’s too bright to look at directly. Now light a candle in front of the ball. Look at the ball. You can’t see the candle light or any details on the ball. Because your eyes are dazzled by the bright light. The very same thing happens with cameras. They “autoadjust” for the bright light, and the candle light is simply too dim to compete.
You’re still ignoring the fact that when people use post-processing to artificially darken the bright light of the sun during an eclipse, they *can* see earthshine on the moon.
The only way you continue with this is to continually misunderstand science, misunderstand optics, make up fantastical nonsense, and in some cases out-and-out lie.
You are NOT doing Krishna any good by ignoring reality and making up clearly false nonsense. If Krishna’s followers are this dumb/dishonest, one cannot trust the rest of your religion. At all.
Hare Krishna Chris
I completely understand your points. However, the corona is not a bright light, the light given by the corona when sun is fully eclipsed is less than the light given by a full moon. Total eclipse means the sun is totally eclipsed and there is no more bright light.
Yes. Corona is brighter than earthshine, yes if you were to expose for the corona you would not see much earthshine.
But you don’t have to expose for the corona, cameras have manual exposure controls. I have seen someone post a picture which he says was taken at ISO 200 for 2 or 3 seconds, [I can’t remember exactly now], and he shows the overexposed corona around the outside and the moon in front of the sun. He claims it is a single image, not stacked. So that should be possible. Anyone should be able to set the exposure for the earthshine on the moon, not the corona, and get the picture of the moon like he has. But he also writes that he has taken the photos of the eartshine on the moon on the new-moon day, the day after the eclipse. So, reading between the lines one wonders if failing to get it on the eclipse he has pasted in the moon from the picture he took on the new moon day.
There is obviously earth-shine on the moon as we can see it clearly with the naked eye on the new moon day, the day after the eclipse, and it is even brighter on the day of the eclipse.
Just try to consider how brightly the surface of the moon is supposed to be lit by the earthshine. The ‘full earth’ is like more than 50 times brighter that the full moon on earth, yes, certainly the moon may reflect less than the earth, so it may appear only ten times brighter, still at the time of the solar eclipse the surface of the moon must be at least ten times brighter that the surface of the earth would be on a full moon. So it can not be dark.
Yes, there are a handful of photos on the internet showing the moon illuminated during the solar eclipse, but this is not what we actually experience. And such photos are appearing in the last 10-15 years only. After hundreds of years of not detecting any illumination.
So I am uncertain about it. You may be correct, and I completely understand what you believe and how you rationalize that, and that is fine, but on the other hand, on the face of it, what we observe during a solar eclipse is not what the model of modern science predicts we should observe.
And you don’t have to look at the corona. You can zoom in on the moon with a telescope or even zoom camera these days to get the corona completely out of the picture and just look at the surface of the moon and see it fully illuminated. Camera will then adjust for the earthshine, not the corona, and you will see the moon in its full glory, illuminated by the earthshine. So do it and prove it. But I think you will find just a black moon not illuminated at all.
So I am simply pointing out this discrepancy between the modern scientific theory of the eclipse and our practical observations.
It is not that everything taught by science is correct. These are theories, and they may or may not be correct.
If it is correct, that is great, I don’t mind, I am just pointing out the discrepancy that according to the theory the moon should be quite clearly illuminated by at least 10 times the illumination on the earth during a full moon at the time of eclipse, but we do not observe it as illuminated, we observe it as dark. So this is an indication of some problem in the current theory.
The dumbness and dishonesty is on the side of science which bends everything to fit their theory. Their theory predicts the moon should be illuminated by the earthshine, but it is not, so they make excuses rather than actually trying to investigate the reason for the missing earthshine on the moon during a solar eclipse.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
The corona during the eclipse is considerably brighter than the *non-existent* full moon. The moon isn’t full during an eclipse. Or has that escaped your attention?
Many cameras don’t have manual exposure. Most people when taking pictures of an eclipse aren’t in the slightest interested in blowing out the corona just to see, maybe, a slight indication of earthshine. Because if they try, the corona will glare out most of the photo. It’s the corona they want, and that’s what they shoot for.
Speaking of dishonesty, you’re still insisting that only the McDonald Observatory does laser observations of the moon. You certainly whin about their temporary building enough.
You continue to ignore the primary station at Apache Point I keep telling you about.
Do you think ALL of these laser ranging stations here are fake too? Guess what they do, they just don’t focus exclusively on the moon to the extent that Apache Point does.
https://ilrs.cddis.eosdis.nasa.gov/network/stations/active/index.html
All of them? The Russians? Argentinians? Australians? All of Europe? All lying?
It’s time you stopped letting your faith blind you to proven fact. I have no intention of chanting Hare Krishna and turning off my brain.
Yes. Of course the solar eclipse happens on the no-moon day, what I was trying to say is the light coming from the corona is something of the magnitude of the light coming off the full moon, not that the moon was full at the time of the eclipse.
My point is the corona is not very bright, your idea is that if there was a bright light behind the moon you would not be able to see it even if it was illuminated by the earthshine. My point is at the time of totality the light behind the moon caused by the corona is not very bright. The whole sky becomes dark and you can see the stars. It is like night time.
In contrast, on the next day, the new moon day, you can clearly see the earthshine on the moon, even though the moon is still basically rising and setting with the sun. You can actually see the earthshine on the moon when the sun is still in the sky. Millions of times brighter than at totality during the eclipse. On the new moon day the sun sets and the moon follows it, setting soon after. So even when the moon sets on the new moon day the sky is so much brighter than at totality and the earthshine on the moon is less than at totality and the viewing conditions are so much worse, still the earthshine is clearly visible even to the naked eye.
Of course if you want to take a picture of moon you have to set the camera to expose for the moon, not the corona and you will get a picture of the over-exposed corona and properly exposed moon with all the details on the surface. If you expose for the corona you are not going to get much or any detail on the moon, of course…
It has nothing to do with Lunar Laser Ranging? We are not talking about that here? What does Lunar Laser Ranging have to do with the visibility of the moon during a solar eclipse???
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Have you considered that the cosmology in the Srimad Bhagavatam might be from the perspective of sages/demigods or ‘higher-dimensional?’ While their point of view is correct, what we can observe (pratyaksha) is also valid. This is what many Vaishnavas I’ve seen on the internet think.
This is partially true. The description of the universe in Srimad-Bhagavatam is by Srila Narada Muni, a transcendental spaceman, who has the ability to travel to any place in the spiritual or material worlds at will simply by playing on his transcendental vina. So Narada Muni can see the universe from every angle of vision but our view is very, very limited. So this idea you see devotees talking about of ‘higher dimensional’ is rubbish. There is no higher dimensional, it is all the material world, it is just we have very little ability to see it, whereas Narada Muni can see everything and understand actually how everything is working. So our understand is imperfect because of our inability to see it properly, but Narada Muni’s understand is perfect because he can see it all.
Hare Krishna Prabhuji,
You were correct now NASA is going to help ISRO in establishing connection with Vikram lander. So, now NASA will help India to fake the mission which will look real of course.
Thank You
Hare Krishna,
Today the Chandrayaan 2 landed on moon although bit was not soft landing. This time NASA had no involvement in the project so prabhuji I wanted to ask is ISRO also lying???????
I hope you will clear my doubts.
Hare Krishna
Yes. Of course. Everyone copies America. So other countries see that by faking moon missions the USA got a lot of prestige and honor so they fake moon missions also to get international prestige and honor. So India is desperate to present themselves as a technologically advanced country, while not being able to supply electricity to half their population and only being able to keep the power on half the time for the ones that actually have it…
And look at the pictures. It is the same gold-foil covered contraption that America used.
And as far as I can tell it broke and is not sending anything back from the moon?
All I can find is this article:
https://www.cnet.com/news/indias-chandrayaan-2-vikram-moon-lander-status-a-mystery/
Which more or less says that the Indian scientists have no idea what happened or where it is or if it even went to the moon, if it landed or not…
So it is the same as last time. The Indians have no idea. Maybe in a few days NASA will announce something. But for the time being the Indians are clueless as to what happened, where their rocket went and were it is now…
Which is what you would expect if you have had any experience with India. [I use to live there for 6 months a year for more than 6 years] Indians are not very good at organizing things…
So I am sure that some of the Indian scientists believe it, like of course most of the NASA scientists believed it at the time, that they were sending men to the moon. But India can not even put on the false show. They just have it taking off but are not competent enough it seems to fake the moon buggy on the moon like the Americans did in the 60’s and 70’s.
So it is all fake nonsense. Sure they send up a rocket, but it did not go to the moon.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
They had no idea what to say yesterday after the communication with the lander was lost but today they are saying they might find the lander and rover with the help of orbiter which is working well. Maybe someone from NASA has told them what to say next. Let’s see what they say tomorrow.
In India people are working hard day and night, going thousands of miles away to work to get two time’s food, also there are so many young people suffering for want of a job and they are making a false show of sending some toy to the Moon which costs $124 million.
Hare Krishna Aman
Yes. Indian government should concentrate on their ‘down to earth’ problems which the Indian people are facing every day because of their bad management, corruption and disorganization… Instead they are more-or-less purposely destroying the economy with demonetization and now crazy excessive GST which is just adding to the troubles of the general Indian people.
Of course I am sure, as with NASA’s moon hoax, almost all the people working for it believe they are sending something to the moon, but while we can not say for sure where their lunar lander went we are very doubtful about these claims. Let us see if they can, with the help of NASA, find it…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Yesterday they located it, today they have found it tilted but intact on lunar surface. The photo looks too nice to me, as all photos of Moon they have given. Really only God knows what they are doing, where their lunar lander is going, but they are not going to the Moon.
Hare Krishna Aman
I have not seen the picture yet so maybe you can post the link to it.
Yes, I think with the help of NASA’s CGI they will get the rover working and wandering around on the moon and send us back fabulous fake videos of the moon…
Today you can produce really good believable fake imagery of anything you want to…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
They’ll hardly have the rover working after hitting the moon at 200 kilometers per hour.
You continue to insult your country and your own great scientists by saying they are deceived and lead around by the nose by NASA.
India is not my country Chris. You can do anything with CGI, so I really hope they do get the Indian rover working on the Indian CGI moon set. It will be great fun!
ISRO has not released their photos of their lander on the moon yet. Anan is confused by a completely irrelevant picture in the news article.
ISRO’s moon orbiter is still working just fine, with a more powerful camera than anyone has flown to the moon before. It took the pictures of the lander and can see things down to 30cm across on the moon’s surface. Which means that the photos it took of the lander will look quite fuzzy, but they should be able to tell whether it’s right side up or not (it’s thought to have landed upside down), but not details of the damage except if it’s in large pieces.
ISRO is probably still analyzing the photos trying to understand what condition the lander is actually in.
Unfortunately, Indian media coverage appears to not be interested in covering the technical details of the mission, they’re treating it as a political event. Which is why the coverage of the mission was so bad (spent most of its time watching the faces and people in the control room clapping (before it impacted) than details of what was actually happening.
Hare Krishna Chris
Of course if you can actually go to the moon for 124 million dollars India should share their secrets with NASA who want a trillion dollars to do it…
I think you have inadvertently disclosed the truth of the Indian moon mission here. It is a political stunt, not a scientific endeavor. You have quite rightly noted that the coverage of the landing was very bad, with no technical details, not even a single image displayed, only a stupid graphic with the altitude. Ridiculous. This is 2019. 5K, 6K, 7K, etc video cameras are cheap. 360 degree cameras are cheap, while there may be some issues in limited power orbiter in receiving video streams from earth, it should be able to send practically unlimited bandwidth video streams to earth. It would only need a very low power transmission and you just point a radio-telescope at it from the earth and you could easily pick up a very high bandwidth data stream. But they give us NOTHING. At least in the 60’s we got live television from the moon. Now, fifty years later, India can not even give us a still image of their moon landing.
You would think today, in the age of selfies, they could set up a ‘selfie’ camera for the orbiter, the lander could have cameras??? It could transmit back to the orbiter which could transmit back to earth?
So as you say, this is not at all a technical mission. It is a political stunt that India thinks will boost their position as a technically advanced country, the third country to land a rover on the moon, etc, etc, etc.
I am just waiting for them to fire it up and send us some video so we can see what their moon set is like.
I think you remember China’s effort at faking the moon. We got one brief look at their moon set before it ‘broke’ and the strange thing is China’s moon was very different to NASA’s moon. So lets hope India gets it rover working, at least in their CGI program, so we can see India’s idea of the surface of the moon.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
I don’t think this is a good place to shake your belief system.
You need to do your homework on your own. Go to youtube and watch some videos from the user “jeranism”, “ericdubay”, “pottersclay”.. if you want, of course.
Or, like I did, try to measure a distance from coast to an island that is more than 20 or 30 miles away. You will see that we can see way to far, and that the alleged curvature is actually non existent.
Parroting what you heard from NASA, media, government, universities, Neil DeGrasse Tyson or whoever, is just dogmatic faith, based on false authorities and our naive disposition to trust strong-arm authorities by default.
Governments lie.
Media lies.
Schools lie.
Scientist lie.
Corporations lie.
All the time….to everyone.
If you don’t believe that, then I cannot make you distrust your authorities.
The Vedas clearly call our world Bhu mandala, and mandala means circle (not globe), which refers to a flat disc region where nine islands (Navadvipa) are situated, beneath Meru mountain which connects our disc to the flat disc region of demigods and demons as well. This goes up and down all the way to Brahmaloka and Shivaloka.
Loka means “a realm” or “location”.
We live on one of the islands on a flat mandala region.
Balls in space hurtling to an unknown destination is a demonic nightmare that has nothing to do with the way Lord Krishna directs His creation.
Living on a coincidental shrapnel that spins in all directions all the time for millions of years is NOT a Vedic view of our world, nor is it observable in reality.
We don’t feel any of the multiple motions of the Earth.
We do see stars always in the same positions and same cycles, so ….how is that possible on a moving Terra-forma ball that goes millions of miles per second to an unknown destination along with the whole galaxy….?…
It is a horrible dogma, a nightmare that serves the purpose of self-comforting atheism by completely ignoring the reality we can observe and trusting known liars and exploitators instead?…
Hare Krishna Kakudmi Prabhu
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Yes Prabhu, I agree with your statements, but still we have to consider time and place, and we have to consider that Prabhupada accepted this globe model, at least for preaching, and he mentions the earth globe many, many times throughout his writings. The thing is we are not really interested in the material world, we really don’t care if the earth is a globe or if it is flat. We care about the spiritual world, we just want to get everyone chanting Hare Krishna so they can elevate their consciousness to Krishna consciousness and get out of this miserable planet, globe or flat, it doesn’t matter, what matters is getting the people to chant Hare Krishna and getting them out of here and back home back to Godhead.
So we have to judge the preaching by this. So does preaching the earth is flat, while not being able to provide a working model to show how it could be flat, get people chanting Hare Krishna. And the answer is no. It just makes us look like fools like the flat-eathers look like fools, at least to the vast majority of the population. Because we have not sufficiently comprehended the description of the universe in the Vedas we do not understand how it works and we can not construct a predictive model based on the earth being flat that predicts what we observe.
You will note that Srila Prabhupada has instructed us to do this, to understand how it works, he wants us to build a Vedic Planetarium in Mayapur that will attract the thoughtful people, scientists, etc, from all over the world to Mayapur to see how the universe really works. But currently we don’t know how the universe really works. That is the great problem. So we can’t build the Vedic Planetarium because we don’t know how it works, we can’t comprehend the descriptions of the universe in Srimad-Bhagavatam.
So that is the problem Prabhu, we don’t understand how the earth could be flat, the flat earthers don’t understand how it could be flat. We have no working model, they have no working model, it is just on faith they claim the earth is flat and we also, on faith in the Vedas, can say it appears to be flat according to the Vedas. Which is our faith, but it is not scientific. It is based on faith. We have to be able to explain it scientifically to preach it to the masses. Otherwise, if we can’t explain it scientifically, what’s the point? The point is to get people to chant Hare Krishna. We have to remember that. So if we can explain it scientifically based on the Srimad-Bhagavatam then the people will get respect in the Srimad-Bhagavatam and then they will start chanting Hare Krishna, that is Prabhupada’s plan for the Mayapur Vedic Planetarium.
So first we have to understand it ourselves, first we have to be able to present a valid working scientific model based on the premise that the earth is flat that is at least as accurate as the globe earth model in predicting the things we see happening around us like the rising and setting of the sun in different parts of the world, the changing of the seasons, the movements of the stars, moon and sun above our heads, etc.
Currently globe earth model does a very good job of explaining all these things but the flat earth people can not explain any of it, and also currently we can not explain it, so that Prabhu is the problem. A scientist has to accept the model that best predicts the observed outcomes of the system, so any scientific person currently has to accept the globe earth model because it works, at least to a large extent, in predicting the things we observe happening around us. While the flat earthers do not even have a model to present and we also do not have any working model to present.
So the point is Prabhu we have to construct a valid working predictive model based on the description of the universe in Srimad-Bhagavatam and until we have that model there is no point in preaching that ‘the earth is flat’. Prabhupada never preached the earth is flat, Bhaktsiddhanta never preached the earth is flat. But they were completely aware of the descriptions of the earth in the Bhagavatam, but you have to consider time and place and you have to be able to explain it scientifically, which currently we can’t do.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Watching youtube videos made by jeranism (Christian extremist) who lies and accidentally proves globe earth in every single one of his video, and sheer slime like Eric Dubay who raises racism and nazi-ism to new heights is not the way to learn truth about anything.
You may not see what you think you can see, but even your own scientists such as Lagadha, Aryabhatta, Bhaskara, Varahamihira, Brahmagupta and others *prove* that the universe is shaped just just modern scientists prove it is – round earth, heliocentricity and orbiting moon just being the beginning.
No, they’re not always in the same position. Even Polaris moves against the sky easily visible on a daily basis if you use the bare minimum of equipment.
Hare Krishna Chris
Yes. I agree. Jeranism, etc, they are well-meaning fools. They are the same as the scientists, they have a doctrine, a belief, and believe it in spite of any evidence to the contrary.
The flat earth people do not have a working model, they have no way to logically or scientifically explain how the earth could be flat. But that does not deter them. Like the scientists, they just accept the things that support their views and ignore the things the contradict it. Like you for example, the shadows of the moon on earth and earth on the moon are not compatible with science’s current sun-moon-earth model, so you prefer to ignore that.
There is one point that Jeranism & Co. bring up that is a valid contradiction to the globe model. That is you can see things very, very far away, particularly using inferred cameras, which would be impossible to see on a globe of the specified diameter theorized by science. So this is proof that there is something wrong with the globe theory, and this has been known to honest scientists forever. There are many observations that contradict and can not be explained by the current scientific theories and the horizon distance is one of these contradictions. Globe earth model does not accurately predict the observed horizon distance. That is a fact. It is a contradiction to the globe model and it is not explained by the globe model.
But that is not ‘proof’ that the earth is flat… It is just proof that we do not completely understand what is happening and there could be many, many reasons that may explain this, a flat earth is only one of them. But the problem with the flat earth as presented by Jeranism, etc, is that they have no model, nothing works on their flat earth. I have discussed this a bit on the site:
https://flatearthfacts.com
So if you are interested in the flat earth you can go there. We are not talking about the flat earth here, it is off topic. We are only talking about eclipses and we can extend to sun-moon-earth system, that’s all.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
According to jains the earth is flat .So it is impossible for the moon to the cause for solar eclipse. Solar eclipse is caused due the movement of Kethu in the space.
It is transparent heavenly body and only blocks light and it can’t be seen with our eyes.
Yes, and it is observable:
The Moon casts its shadow on the Earth during the solar eclipse which is way smaller than the Moon’s alleged size, according to the NASA’s info about the Moon’s size.
A shadow of an object illuminated from one is always at least the size of that object, and according to the distance, the shadow increases.
But it NEVER grows smaller than the object. Penumbra is simply not an observable phenomenon in nature. NASA’s astronomers are making things up because they pose as the only authorities on these matters.
Thanks.
“A shadow of an object illuminated from one is always at least the size of that object, and according to the distance, the shadow increases.
But it NEVER grows smaller than the object. Penumbra is simply not an observable phenomenon in nature.”
Stop repeating lies from fundamentalist Christian fanatics.
Shadows getting smaller, when the light emitting object is larger than the shadow causing object is trivial to demonstrate.
Hare Krishna Chris
Yes. Of course a lot of people who do not know anything say a lot of nonsense. But even big scientists get confused about trying to explain the moon and where it is and how it got there and the moon certainly has many bewildering and unexplained aspects to it, even for thoughtful intelligent scientists who consider it.
So this is not my statement and I have not thought about this and don’t know. But if you are saying that shadows get smaller if the object causing them is large then there are issues with this, for example it does not happen with Lunar Eclipses. So your theory appears to fall apart in that case, because during lunar eclipse the shadow of the earth on the moon is at least as big, maybe even bigger, than the earth. So in the case of Lunar Eclipse the shadow of the earth on the moon is NOT getting smaller at all. So why should the shadow of the moon on the earth get smaller? The sun is far, far away, and effectively relatively the same size to the moon and earth, so shadow of moon on the earth and shadow of earth on the moon should act the same way, but they don’t. Shadow of moon on earth is very small, but shadow of earth on moon is quite large.
So people like you don’t think about these things. You just accept the teachings of the priests of science and just presume that brains smarter than you have sorted our these things and they must be correct. That is your faith. But if you try to logically look into these things many of the teachings of science don’t make sense.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Scientists haven’t been confused where the moon is. They know precisely where it is within a centimetre. So accurate that they can determine the fringes of eclipse totality to within metres – which requires not only knowing exactly where it is, but also precisely how big it is, its motion, and topographic maps of the moon accurate within centimetres.
How do we know this? Because astrophotographers use that information to set up their cameras and if it’s wrong, they’ll know it.
Their photographic results prove that the calculations are correct. If it wasn’t, then they wouldn’t be.
Don’t repeat that nonsense about your wild hog hunters In Texas at the McDonald observatory which hasn’t been used for laser ranging for over a decade. The .7m telescope they used to use has been in the visitor centre for the visitors to play with. That’s what you saw, if you really saw anything. A visitor’s toy. Not an active science instrument.
You weren’t even in the right state. The Apache Point laser ranging facility is in New Mexico with a 3.9m telescope – over 25 times as much light gathering area.
When faced with you ringing bells and chanting hare krishnas, wild hog hunters in Texas are more likely to shoot you, because you’re scaring off their dinner!
I’ve already debunked your nonsense about earthlight (which is what the conversation was originally about until you started gish galloping off to other nonsense). No dear, earthlight has been seen for thousands of years and understood since the 1600s. Earthlight has been observed in the eclipse centuries before NASA existed, not “only as a response to my postings” that you’re fantasizing about.
I’ve already debunked your lie about umbra/penumbra. Shadows becoming smaller than the object throwing them if the light source is large can be proven with nothing more complicated than your thumb, a functional eyeball and a reasonably clear day or a large diffused light bulb. I won’t bother explaining how, because you’re too indoctrinated – you are blinded to reality by your faith. But it’s really easy. A 4 year old can debunk you.
So there’s two competing hypothesis about how the moon was formed. Big deal. Both make a lot more sense than your bunk. Both are consistent with what we see, and over the next decade or less, I’m sure they’ll have proven which one it was.
You’re just regurgitating obsolete long-debunked christian nutbar nonsense.
You disgrace your country, your culture, and your culture’s rich history of understanding and using science by insisting it’s being led around by the nose. India’s science and technology stands on its own. It doesn’t need to be led. Your fellow countrymen would be most upset with you for calling them all liars.
Fake a moon shot to “be like the Americans?” Then they wouldn’t have faked a crash, idiot. Like the Americans? Were the Soviets trying to imitate the Americans when they landed on the moon before the Americans did?
Why shouldn’t the vehicle be covered with gold coloured foil? Everybody uses it. Even I have. And why shouldn’t they? It’s Kapton polyimide film. The best lightweight IR/light reflector there is – capable of handling temperatures from -264C and to above 400C without shattering or melting. Not only is it the best, it’s *cheap* – you can buy it off Amazon for a few bucks per square metre. When it’s the best there is, there’s no point in using anything else.
Hare Krishna Chris
This is the telescope I visited and this is where I met the technicians and even the director also of the Luna Laser Ranging project. You will note it is in a trailer.
It may be true, they have retired this telescope with the 12″ mirror you can see firing the laser in the picture above. That does not negate what I have said about this Lunar Laser Ranging experiment. I visited there at least 10 years ago and it was an active scientific experiment then and that is the telescope which was used for the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment daily from the Apollo days up till whenever it was retired. So you are just confirming what I said. Previously you were claiming it was not possible to do this with 12″ mirror telescope, etc. But they were doing it with this telescope for close to 40 years. So you are just confirming everything I have said and admitting your previous replies, denying that you can do LLR with a 12″ mirror telescope, were wrong. And I was certainly there with the wild pig hunting good old boys for at least 2 nights and in that time they thoroughly educated me in all the aspects of this experiment. Also I had the opportunity of meeting the director of the LLR program which was being done also in Australia up to the late 80’s at Siding Springs Observatory. His conclusion was that although in Australia they had the best location, theoretically, for performing this experiment, they were never able to conclusively establish that they were getting any actual returns from the retroreflectors on the moon. He laughed about the French, who at that time was the only other place [except for McDonnald Observatory] where this experiment was being regularly done, who claimed they could get returns from the moon even in the daytime. Which is obviously impossible.
So I know about this experiment. I also know it is not very repeatable. At McDonald they could go for months without getting any returns at all and then suddenly it would start working and then stop again and they could not explain why. Also the experiment was very much dependent on the operator. Some operators could get results and others could not. And it is a rigged experiment. Because it is just searching for green photons. And you, as a scientist, know there are always green photons in light. White light is made up of all the colors, including green. So you can’t actually do this experiment because if you just fire the laser and leave the detector open it will be constantly triggered by the green photons that are naturally there anyhow. So what they do is they presume that they know the exact distance to the moon and only open up the detector at the exact instant they ‘know’ the reflection will be arriving back from the moon from the pulse they sent a few seconds ago. And if they find green photons they presume they are coming from the reflectors on the moon.
But you know this is such a far-fetched idea, you are supposed to be a scientist, so why not think about it instead of just blindly accepting it? Lasers do not remain narrow beams. They diverge, spread out, quite quickly. Even over a mile a laser will become ten or twenty feet wide. So just imagine how wide the laser beam would be after 250,000 miles.
“The station’s 10 Hz repetition rate Nd YAG laser produces 700 mJoules per pulse at 1.064 Jlm. The yield on frequency doubling is half of this energy at 0.532 Jlm-the rest remains as infrared (IR). The pulse length (at half height) is 350 picoseconds, giving a transmitted pulse length of approximately 0.1 m. ”
So you are the scientist, do the calculations. There is a calculator at:
https://www.laserworld.com/en/laserworld-toolbox/divergence-calculator.html
And just tell me how wide the beam of this laser will be by the time it reaches the moon, a quarter of a million miles away, and calculate how much light would fall on a 12″ x 12″ retroreflector on the moon. Then calculate how much the reflection from that will diverge and how wide that will be by the time it gets back to the earth. Then calculate how much of that reflected light will go down and be collected in that 12″ mirror in the telescope. Not much. Nothing actually. But you calculate it for yourself.
And, by the way, with all your bluster, you again have managed to avoid the main point I raised. The main point of my previous reply was to let you know there seems to be yet another contradiction with your moon-earth-sun model. Solar eclipse is caused by shadow of moon on the earth, which becomes very small, tiny in compassion to the size of the moon however earth is coming in front of the same sun and producing a shadow on the moon which is at least as large as the earth, maybe larger, again you are the scientist, so you can calculate it. So you can’t accept your model and have it both ways. You can’t have a big shadow of the earth and tiny shadow of the moon caused by the same sun with the same distances apart. Something is seriously wrong here and you have conveniently ignored this point.
So I am just asking you to consider the possibility that some things taught by the church of science may not be correct.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Nope. The shadow of a circular object illuminated by the Sun is a cone that comes to a point at 1/tan(A) times the diameter of the object. Here A is the angular size of the Sun.
Using .53° the shadow is 108 diameters long.
Yes. This is not the pint of this article and you may be correct. But please explain what happens with lunar eclipses. Why the shadow of the earth is at least as big as the earth, maybe bigger, on the moon? So earth’s shadow on the moon is very big, bigger than the earth, but moon’s shadow on the earth is very small, much smaller than the moon? There seems to be some contradiction here, at least to me.
The diameter of the Earth is 7917 miles, the diameter
of the Moon is 2160 miles. Thus, the diameter of the Earth is 3.66 times the diameter of the Moon.
During Lunar eclipses, astronomers have long known that the Earth’s shadow is about 2.5 Moon diameters wide.
This fact, combined with the coincidence that the Moon has roughly the same angular diameter as the
Sun, allowed astronomers hundreds of years ago
to accurately estimate the distance to the Moon and the diameter of the Moon by simple geometry, provided that you can determine the diameter of the Earth.
Hi John
Good information, thanks for that. However this is umbra only, penumbra is much bigger: https://www.quora.com/When-Earths-shadow-eclipses-the-Moon-how-big-is-Earths-shadow-compared-to-the-apparent-size-of-the-Moon for example:
“The shadow of the earth forms a narrowing cone of total darkness (the umbra) and a widening reverse cone shape of partial darkness (the penumbra. The earth umbra shadow is 2.8 times the diameter of the moon at lunar distance, and the penumbra extends one lunar diameter either side of the umbra for a total diameter of 4.8 moon widths.”
But the point is the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse is huge in comparison to the tiny shadow of the moon on the earth during a solar eclipse. That is what is apparently contradicting the current sun-moon-earth system theory. If current theory is correct both the shadow of the earth on the moon and the shadow of the moon on the earth should behave similarly. IE: they should both be small or both be large, considering the different sizes of the moon, earth, of course, but we see moon’s shadow as being very tiny, say 50 miles across for umbra which the earths umbra shadow on the moon is close to 2000 miles. To be consistent we would expect shadow of the earth to be 3.66 times larger than the shadow of the moon. So that would be 50 * 3.66 = 183. Say around 200 miles across… But it is 2000 miles across. So this points to a serious error in the current sun-moon-earth system, at least that is how it appears to me. I am open to your explanation of this phenomenon if you have one.
In this situation, according to current model, everything else is the same, sun distance, distance between the earth and moon, only difference is the sizes of the earth and moon and that can only account for a 3.66 times difference in the size of the shadows but there appears to be a 10 times difference in the size of the shadows.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
How would you know that the shadow of the earth on the moon is larger on the moon? There’s nothing to throw a shadow against…
It is larger, but we only know that by the geometry formed by umbra and penumbra, which are trivially observable in simple experiments. Including the aforesaid “thumb plus sun” one.
This is the reason why it looks like it does: the earth’s atmosphere refracts the light grazing its side in towards the centre, causing the entire moon to still be lit, but far dimmer. it is red because the air bends the red portion of the spectrum more.
Both this refraction and colouration can also be observed in simple laboratory experiments
Chris you claim to be a scientist but you are so stupid. It seems like you have never seen a lunar eclipse. We can see the shadow coming over the moon. So we can see when it starts we can note how long it covers the moon for and then we can see the edge of the shadow uncovering the moon again, coming across from the other side. So it is very elementary geometry to calculate the size of the shadow on the moon. And it is not at all consistent with the current sun-moon-earth model, as I have already extensively explained. Because current sun-moon-earth model would require earth’s shadow on the moon to behave in the same way as the moons shadow on the earth, only adjusted for the sizes of the earth and moon, but, as I have pointed out, moon’s shadow on the earth is very tiny but earth’s shadow on the moon is enormous. And this difference can not be explained by the difference in the size of the earth and moon, that can account for about 3.5 times the difference but actual difference is more than 10 times.
So it means we have yet another problem with the current sun, moon, earth model.
So you should think before you write and not just blindly believe the doctrines of the scientist priests, but you should question when the things do not make sense, that is real science.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hello.
First, I would like to say I have a great respect for the Bhakti Yoga you express on your website. Hare Krishna. 🙂 I am a Unitarian Universalist myself, with ties to Judeo-Christian ethics as well as Religious Humanism. I do my best to develop the principles of Gratitude, Forgiveness, and Love (although I am not always the best at it).
I am not the most conversant with Vedic cosmology, but if the moon is farther away from us than the Sun it makes human achievement even more amazing, for people like Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldron, and the amazing number of scientists on Earth who had to do the math and engineering to get to the Moon. It seems so sad that this technological ability, the ability for humanity to get together to solve problems, has such trouble with Earth problems like race relations, poverty, the environment, foreign relations, and immigration.
Yes, spoiler alert, I learned Transcendental Meditation when I was younger, and while at the Unitarian place I learned Vipassana, but I found I don’t do those practices with the purpose of going Mayavadi, thinking the world is an illusion, or desperately trying to avoid rebirth.
I think the point of this message is just to say hi. I don’t really need a response, but you can give one if you like.
Bye.
Jason
Hi Jason
Sorry for the delay in replying, comments are moderated and I am slow on moderating them at the moment.
As far as going to the moon, man has never gone to the moon. We can’t go send men the moon now, fifty years later with technology hundreds of times better than we had in the 1960’s. It is just crazy if you actually study it you will see that. NASA’s “men on the moon” is just a fairy tale. We can’t send men to the moon now, nor will we be able to send men to the moon in the foreseeable future, that is official NASA opinion also. They say, “Maybe in 50 years if you give us 50 billion dollars maybe we could go to the moon then.”
Anyhow main thing is to chant Hare Krishna, and read Srila Prabhupada’s books, so please do that.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hello again.
This one is a political response. At the time we were in a space race with the Soviet Union. If the moon landing were a hoax, that would have been a massive propaganda victory for the Soviets, because then they could land and claim victory, being the first on the moon. As it was their Luna program had some great successes.
Oh, here is something of note. India is sending something to the Moon NOW. It is called the Chandrayaan-2, and is a lunar orbiter, a lander, and a lunar rover. It was launched July 22, 2019 and is supposed to land on the moon on Sept. 7, 2019. If it succeeds India will be the 4th country to have achieved a soft landing on the moon, following USA, USSR (now Russia), and China.
Here I have to agree with you, I notice all these more recent probes, landers, orbiters are unmanned. Unfortunate, I would have loved to see a colony on the moon in my lifetime, the movie 2001 in real life.
But, even an unmanned mission to the moon is a great victory for India. Let us pray for its success. Hare Krishna.
Russia is very intelligent. They don’t get any benefit by exposing the lies of the United States. However they get great benefit by knowing that the US faked the manned moon landings. The US know the Russians know, and that gives the Russians power over the US. But if they were to advertise the fake US man on the moon then that would create a bit of a buzz for a few years and then nothing. So Russians get so much more benefit by knowing and not advertising it.
As far as India going to the moon it is rubbish. We don’t believe these things. India has no idea what they are doing, last time they had to wait for NASA to announce that ‘India discovered water on the moon.’ So India moon mission is still controlled by NASA, results are announced by NASA.
Anyhow our point is about manned moon missions. It is impossible to send men beyond low-earth orbit NOW, what to speak of 50 years ago with the cave-man technology they had then. So it was impossible to send men out of low-earth orbit also in the 1960’s. Any sane person who has done even superficial research will have discovered this. It is impossible now to send men out of low-earth orbit, if we don’t know how to do it now, we didn’t know how to do it in the 60’s.
So it is just a joke, man in the moon, a fairy tale for fools who will believe it.
All the points have been explained and even NASA do not make any attempt to substantiate their claims they sent men to the moon in the 60’s. Any half-intelligent person knows that was not possible, what to speak of intelligent scientists, they know. It was all fakery.
Russia would have lots to benefit both then and now from exposing the Americans. The whole thing was an act of demonstrating technological superiority. Russia couldn’t afford to lose it if they didn’t have to.
Yes, “all points have been explained” by making up nonsense.
It’s not possible to fly commercial passenger aircraft at faster than the speed of sound right now either. But we used to. Thus the rest of your argument completely disintegrates…
We didn’t have the technology to go to the moon for the past 40 some-odd years because there was NO funding to maintain what they had nor make anything new. The US Congress saw to that. Russia was bankrupt so they couldn’t do it either.
But now there are new reasons, new technologies, and even India is doing it.
This is a money issue, not technology.
Chris you are a real ‘true believer’ in NASA and no one can ever shake your faith. If only you had so much faith in Krishna, that would be wonderful for you!
Oh gosh Dasa, you have the same ludicrous hangups around NASA that the flat earthers do.
No Dear Dasa, NASA has nothing to do with the science of eclipses, other than to be a good source of the *precise* mapping of where the effects will be seen. All this stuff we’ve been talking about was settled *centuries* before NASA arrived on the scene. Or do you think your own astronomers of almost 2000 years ago were in NASA’s pay? The Russians during the cold war? North Korea now? Galileo?
ROSCOM? INRO? CSA, ESA, JAXA and the other 70 some-odd space agencies, thousand of space-related companies, all controlled by NASA?
That’s even more nutty than Krishna. Sorry.
But this seems to be what one would expect from someone who continues to lie about such things as lunar laser ranging. Belief in Krishna Consciousness is hardly conducive to honesty, now is it?
You can continue to make up all the nonsense you want, but it remains, as always nonsense. No real scientist doubts the moon missions. None. Including yours.
Wonderful for me? Oh, yeah, I’m sure, it’d erase a highly successful 50 year career in science and technology designing with and using what you insist is fake. Wrong Dasa, no matter how much you squeal, squirm and lie, it’s all real.
Chris, you can not answer any of the points I raise so you just try to change the subject. If you can remember or if you take the time to read back on the comment I was replying to you will see that in that comment you were admitting that NASA today has no idea how to go to the moon, they have to get another trillion dollars in funding and do research and development to try and find out how to go to the moon, to try and overcome the huge technical problems of getting men out of low-earth orbit, one of them is the high levels of radiation which would kill people without sufficient shielding. And current technology can not provide that shielding in a way that would be light enough. They could use six feet of water or one foot of lead, but then the rocket would not lift off the ground unfortunately because of the extra weight…
So the whole point of the article we were discussing is NASA and NASA’s claim that they were able to send men to the moon in the 1960’s but today they are unable to send men to the moon, and maybe perhaps, with another trillion dollars of funding, they might be able to do it in 2050…. So I was pointing out that if NASA could actually send men to the moon many times in the 1960’s then they would still be able to send men to the moon today. But because they can’t send men to the moon today that proves they did not send men to the moon in the 1960s…
So that is the point. And you expressed your blind faith in the high priests of NASA, you believe they went to the moon in the 60’s and you know they can’t go to the moon now. And because of your blind faith you just believe it even though it makes no logical sense at all. If NASA knew how to go to the moon in the 60’s they still know how to do it now… But they don’t know how to go to the moon now. That is the point. And that I why I marvel at your blind religious faith in NASA. In spite of so much evidence that the manned moon missions were faked, you still just blindly believe in NASA.
So yes, if your faith was in Krishna instead of being in NASA then it would be very good for you.
So I am completely honest and completely logical and you are the one who is exhibiting the symptoms of a blind religious fanatic, blindly believing in NASA and blindly believing the current scientific theories of the working and structure of the universe are the absolute truth.
So you are not a scientist, you are someone who has accepted science as a religion and you blindly follow the priests of science without questioning anything. This is not science. Science means questioning. Because in reality many of our scientific ideas have been proven historically to be incorrect. And it is the process of science to test and discard old incorrect ideas and replace them with [hopefully] better new theories which more closely model the observed phenomenon.
So anyhow do not change the subject. The point we were discussing and the point I was replying on is your blind religious faith in NASA and your illogical reconciliation that NASA can send men to the moon in the 60’s many times successfully but now, with technology thousands of times better, they are unable to send men to the moon. These two things can not stand together. If NASA knew how to send men to the moon in the 60’s they would still know how to do it now. They still have the rockets, they still have all the landing modules that the astronauts came back in. I visited that Houston NASA exhibition and at the time I was there they had three of the original landers the astronauts came back to earth in and in a big shed they have the whole rocket there with all the stages. And they explained to us that because the Apollo program was cancelled they had already made a number of complete rockets for future missions. And they still have at least two of them. So the point is whatever technology they had in the 60’s and claimed to go to the moon with, NASA still has that now, it has not gone anywhere. And since then technology has advanced so much also. So you have to get it through your head that if NASA went to the moon in the 60’s they would still be able to go to the moon now. And they can’t go to the moon now. And it is NOT a question of funding. George Bush, for example, offered NASA unlimited funding if they could go to the moon but they said they could not go, no matter how much money they got. Same with Trump, he has recently offered NASA unlimited funding to ‘return’ to the moon, but NASA’s reply, ‘We can’t do it…’. ‘Give us a trillion dollars and maybe we will be able to go back in 2050…’
SO THIS IS PROOF NASA FAKED THE 1960’s MOON MISSIONS.
And everything else you look at in any detail confirms that there are so many inconsistencies and impossibilities. The whole NASA ‘men on the moon’ story is just a fairy-tale. And any intelligent person now knows that. NASA knows it, all the scientists in NASA know it, and even most of the workers there at Houston at least know it. I asked so many of them and none of them were confident enough to say we actually sent men to the moon. All expressed doubts to me. So those people who are close to it, those who have studied it, they do not believe the ‘men on the moon’ fairy tale.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudivsa dasa
If you were paying attention rather than chanting Hare Krishna, you’ll have noticed I did answer your question. The answer to NASA’s “not having the technology” is so simple even a Krishna chanter should understand it:
They built and used the technology in the 1960s and 1970s using about $25 billion dollars. The US Government decided to stop funding it. The rockets couldn’t be re-used and what remained was put in museums or scrapped, the tools with which to make them got scrapped.
They didn’t have a rocket to do it again, and they couldn’t get the money to do it again.
So they no longer had the technology.
Having a technology means *more* than “knowing how to do something”, it includes “having the resources to do it”. The US government said no, so, NASA didn’t have the resources to do it again – hence no technology.
It really is simple. You should understand that.
But you won’t, as you won’t admit I caught you lying about laser ranging to the moon.
What is it about Hare Krishna’s that makes them so dishonest?
You are such a fool and you don’t read and I have defeated all your nonsense. As far as Luna Laser Ranging I spent many nights there in the trailer with the wild pig hunting good old boys who do this experiment for NASA at the McDonald Observatory in Texas, so I know everything about this experiment. I know exactly the equipment they are using, I have even targeted the telescope myself trying to get pings back from the moon. It is a telescope with a 12 inch mirror they use, and it is the same telescope and laser and sensor they have been using since the 60’s. Only computer targeting was updated, looks like 90’s technology.
As far as needing funding, you have conveniently ignored the fact that NASA was offered the funding by George Bush and more recently by Trump, but the answer from NASA, “Sorry can’t do it.” And that is what NASA say in their own videos these days. NASA are quite openly admitting they don’t know how to go to the moon. They quite openly admit there are many unresolved issues that prevent them from sending men out of low-earth orbit. One of them, as I have mentioned and you have ignored, is the radiation problem. Except for the faked moon missions no one claims that any human has ever left low-earth orbit. What to speak of going to the moon? We can not even get people out of low-earth orbit, and NASA openly admit this.
So what makes you so dishonest. Why can’t you face the truth that even NASA currently openly admits, they do not know how to send men to the moon.
And if NASA do not know how to send men to the moon now, obviously they did not know how to send men to the moon in the 60’s. So the show they gave us on the television of men walking on the moon was obviously fake.
And yes. They spent 25 billion developing the technology. So if they actually developed technology allowing them to send men to the moon they would still have that technology now and would not need a trillion dollars to develop it again. So if they want a trillion dollars to develop it again then it is obvious they have not yet developed it.
If you are applying for money for research and development then obviously the research and development is not yet done. Otherwise there is no need for doing it again.
What if the Ford Motor Company suddenly said, “We don’t know how to make cars now, we need a trillion dollars to do some reasearch to find out how to develop cars.” That would be insane, and even you would admit that. But that is EXACTLY what NASA is doing, on one had they spend the 25 billion to develop the technology to put men on the moon, now they have their hands out for another trillion dollars to develop the technology to put men on the moon, again… Insane? You bet.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
So I know everything about this experiment and you know nothing. And everything I said is correct. I have the real actual experience, I have seen and even used the equipment, you have not.
“Man has never gone to the moon” Then who put the laser reflector (mirror) there? Scientists still do experiments using that thingy, bro.
This is off-topic. This topic is “Solar Eclipses are not caused by the moon”
Hare Krishna Prabhu!
All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Please accept my humble obeisances
Even if some evidence is found that moon is coming in front of sun during solar eclipse this July (as you say in one of the below comments), should we accept this theory? I think we should never accept this bogus theory. I will never accept it Prabhu. This is complete nonsense that moon is coming in front of the sun to cover it. Demigods do not fight with each other like this. All those who are saying moon comes in front of the sun during solar eclipse are rascals, that’s all!
Hare Krishna Aman
We do not accept any of the modern scientists theories. They have no access to real knowledge. But the problem is we do no understand or comprehend the Vedic description of the universe. And what we see happening in the sky with our imperfect eyes is not necessarily what is actually happening. From the Fifth Canto, for example, we find out that Mt. Meru and also the ring of mountains outside the entire Bhu-Mandala structure is solid gold and reflecting light like a mirror. So when we look up in the sky in many cases what we may be seeing could be reflections in a mirror. And these are strange mirrors, curved, in the shape of an inverted cone, etc. So simply by looking in the sky we can not understand anything conclusively about how the moon, sun, planets, stars, etc, are situated. The only way we can get any factual knowledge from this is through the Vedas.
So even if you can take pictures of the moon coming in front of the sun, which I highly doubt, we could be looking into a reflect and everything we are seeing could be reversed as to what the actual situation is…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
It’s pretty much a waste of time arguing with Madhudvisa Dasa. It is easy to find dozens of images of earthshine illuminating the moon during a solar eclipse, simply by doing a search in Google images on “earthshine during solar eclipse.” Mr. Dasa won’t accept any of them as real. Indeed, any further comments by Mr. Dasa become an exercise in irrational conspiracy claims. If Mr. Dasa’s notions typify those of the Krishna Consciousness movement, then the movement has no credibility, and should be avoided and ignored
Hare Krishna John
Yes. You can find dozens of photos of earthshine during a solar eclipse now. But that is only since I started talking about it and only since they [the astronomers, scientists] have realized the moon must be the brightest object in the sky [except the corona] during a solar eclipse. If you read my article you will see the points are very valid. I do not discount the possibility of the moon coming in front of the sun, nor do I discount the possibility of Rahu coming in front of the sun. And a few photos of the moon in front of the sun during a solar eclipse on the internet does not prove it. Because I do not know if you are aware of Photoshop. Anyone can produce a photo of the moon in front of the sun during an eclipse in one minute in Photoshop.
So next solar eclipse, which I think is later this year, I will myself try to take the photos of the moon in front of the sun, and I suggest you try it also for yourself. So let us see if it is actually there or not. Rather than just blindly believe a few photos on the internet.
These days photos are not proof of anything unfortunately. It is so easy to make a photo of anything you want to see in Photoshop…
This idea, that solar eclipses are not caused by the moon, but by a dark planet called Rahu, is the Vedic conclusion. It is the way eclipses are described in all the books of Srila Vyasadeva, the author of the Vedas. Also according to the description of Srila Vyasadeva the moon is above the sun, so it is not possible for the moon to come in front of the sun. So if one is a follower of the Vedas then he has to consider these points. And that is what I am doing here, considering these points.
And if you had read this article you would be able to understand that if the universe is as is taught to us by the scientists then at the time of a solar eclipse the moon is experiencing ‘full earth’ and that means it is flooded with light, about fifty times more light than what the earth is flooded with on a full moon. So, if the scientist’s theory is correct, the moon must be visible in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. And that means visible to our naked eyes. Just like the earth would be clearly visible from the moon if you were on the moon during the full moon day even though it is night on the earth. You would still be able to see everything illuminated on the earth by the moonshine.
It is a simple point. And because we do not see this, because, during a solar eclipse, we see a totally dark body coming in front of the sun, that supports the Vedic idea that it is Rahu, it does not support the scientists idea that it is the moon.
So you have to become open to the possibility that scientists sometimes, or even often, make mistakes and are wrong…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
“They” started showing them only because you mentioned it?
Seriously? Do you think “they” notice you at all? You think all the astrophotographers on the planet, including the amateurs are in some vast conspiracy?
That’s some ego you got.
I’ve seen such photos long before you mentioned this subject,
I just had no reason to book mark any, because I didn’t think anyone would be so foolish to call it a plot.
I’ll bet you could find them on the wayback machine going back a decade or more.
What makes you think it’d be the brightest object in the sky other than the corona? That would mean you could see it anytime you looked and the moon wasn’t full. But you don’t, but you can see venus, Sirius, ISS and the rest of the bare eye visible stars.
If you think it’s going to be that bright, show the math. It’s pretty easy math: earth’s incident sunlight brightness, earth’s albedo, factor in convex reflector, inverse-square to moon, moon’s albedo, factor in convex reflector, nverse-square back to the earth. Come on now, it should be easy to figure out the apparent magnitude.
Hi Chris
It astonishes me that you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the western scientific theories about these things and yet you so religiously and zealously attempt to defend these ideas that you do not understand at all.
Yes. These photos of the moon in front of the sun during a solar eclipse are a new thing. They did not exist before digital photography for sure. And it is true that you can get greater light sensitivity using digital photography and then ‘stacking’ multiple images in post-processing to get even more detail. So there is a slight chance that due to the increased sensitivity and this ‘stacking’ of multiple images they have been able to bring the moon out of the complete darkness. But this is by no means proven. Very few of these photos exist and certainly even if it is impossible to see the moon in front of the sun during a solar eclipse there will be some photographers who will fake this. That is just the way people are. Not that every scientist or astronomer is dishonest, but there are some who will fake it to produce an award-winning photo. That is the history, that is human nature, you can not argue with that.
“What makes you think it’d be the brightest object in the sky other than the corona? That would mean you could see it anytime you looked and the moon wasn’t full. But you don’t, but you can see venus, Sirius, ISS and the rest of the bare eye visible stars.”
This shows your complete lack of knowledge as to what is going on at the time of a solar eclipse and your lack of comprehension of the Western model. The only time the moon is fully illuminated by the earthshine is during the no moon day. At that time moon and sun are close in the sky. On that day both the sun and moon rise and set at the same time and follow a similar path through the sky. Sometimes they share the same spot in relation to a small band on the earth about 100 miles wide. So when this alignment occurs there is a solar eclipse. So because the sun and the moon are in similar places in the sky at this time the brightness of the sun washes out the earthshine on the moon. So you can’t see it. As you can’t see venus, etc, when the sun is in the sky, what to speak of sharing almost the same position in the sky. So there is no question of seeing the moon on the no moon day because it rises and sets with the sun. But during a total solar eclipse the sun is blocked out and then we must see the moon illuminated by the earthshine, which is something like 50 times brighter than the moonshine on earth on a full moon night. This is confirmed by science, that is not just my idea, it is a fact, if the Western science model is correct.
So if it is the moon coming in front of the sun during a solar eclipse the moon must be visible and must be the brightest object in the sky except for the corona. That is also confirmed by science, it is not just me saying that, it has to be a fact if the western model is correct.
And you can clearly see the earthshine on the moon on the new moon day, the next day, because by then the sun and moon have separated enough so the sun can set while the moon is still in the sky, then you can very clearly see the whole moon surface illuminated by the earthshine and the fine bright line of the new moon along the edge. So during a solar eclipse the moon has to be more brightly illuminated by the earthshine that we see it illuminated by the earthshine on a new moon day.
The whole moon is illuminated by the earthshine on the new moon day, but the whole surface of the moon has to be more illuminated during the solar eclipse. That is the time of the ‘full earth’ on the moon, maximum illumination from the earthshine, which is about fifty times brighter then the moonshine on a full moon. This will not appear as 50 times brighter on the moon due to the albedo of the moon being lower than the earth, but it will be five to ten times brighter. Even if it is only three times brighter than a full moon on earth the moon will be completely illuminated. It is fifty times brighter, but because they say the moon is less reflective than the earth, it will appear to be less bright.
So anyhow these points are all agreed on by anyone who understands the western scientific model and if you try and understand the model you are trying to defend you will agree with all these points also.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Those images are not real.
Hare Krsna pr.
I just have one question. If moon is really self luminous, why don’t we always see full moon. Why do we see phases of moon. If its self luminous, every part of it should emit light at all times, so there should be no concept of phases of moon.
Second thing is if we see a clear half moon’s picture we can see some pits in the surface of moon. Here is one such image.
https://bit.ly/2FDChUB
We can actually see some dark shades in those pits. If moon is self luminous, we should not see any shades inside those pits. Its only that if moon is reflecting light from somewhere that those pits have shades. These shades are nothing but shadow cast on those pits from elevations.
Hoping to hear from you on this.
I have not said moon is self-luminous. That is not the opinion of Srila Prabhupada. Moon is reflecting the light of the sun. There is a clear relationship of the illumination on the surface of the moon and its relationship with the sun in the sky. So we can clearly see there is a connection between the illumination of the moon and its relationship with the sun. What Prabhupada explains is there is fire on the moon like there is fire on the sun. But the fire on the moon is described like kusa grass. So it is reflective. Not real fire like on the sun.
Thank you so much pr for clearing this. I always used to think if moon has fire, it must be self luminous. There are still a few queries I have.
1) On a clear night , when we see a crescent moon, we can see other part of moon which is not reflected by sun. Its very dim. If this is not earth-shine reflected by moon, then where does moon gets this light from? Its very faint but clearly visible.
2) If moon is farther than sun, are our modern scientists wrong on calculating moon’s distance. We see that so many spacecrafts has already been launched by them. Even India started Chandrayaan. How are they able to land on moon if their calculations are wrong. Have they really landed on moon or some other planet?
Hare Krishna Avinash
1) The explanation for the illumination of the moon on the new moon day by the scientists is earthshine. At that time, when the moon is dark, it is in the sky during the daytime, which means it is on the illuminated side of the earth. That is the whole point of this post, that, at the time of the solar eclipse, which happens on the no moon day, the moon is illuminated by the eartshine, and we can, as you point out, see this clearly on the new moon day [one day after the no moon day]. On the no moon day the moon and sun rise and set together, so it is not possible to see the moon on that day, except when there is a solar eclipse. But on the new moon day the moon is still in the sky for a short time after the sun sets, it is then you can see the earthshine on the moon. So if the moon is illuminated then, and you can see it, then it must also be illuminated in the same way when it comes in front of the sun during the eclipse. It can not be dark. It must be slightly illuminated in the same way as we see it on the new moon day…
2) Yes. Our modern scientists are wrong about almost everything. We do see them launching spacecrafts. But that is all we see. We see a big explosion and a rocket going up in the sky and disappearing. That is all we see. Then they tell us a story about where the rocket has gone and what it is doing… But we have no idea if their stories are true or not. For all we know the rocket may just come back down and crash into the ocean. They don’t know where the moon is, so they can not have landed on the moon. Rahu is close to where they think the moon is, so if they went anywhere they went to Rahu, but if they went to Rahu they would know they were not on the moon because they would be able to see the moon. So really I don’t think they have been anywhere. They can put things into low-earth orbit. We know that. But at this time we have no proof they have gone any further than low-earth orbit.
1 “It must be slightly illuminated in the same way as we see it on the new moon day…” As I said earlier, it is, but the word is “slightly”, and during an eclipse, the slight illumination of the moon by earthlight is swamped by the brilliant glare of the Sun’s corona, so you can’t see it without heavy image processing to emphasize the dim earthlight and remove the coronal glare. Which I’ve *also* shown you.
2 Modern Scientists are right about virtually everything.
3. You have an even better incentive to make stuff up than the scientists do, because you think it would destroy your religion.
4.Are the scientists in ISRO lying to you? They’ve launched to Mars. A pretty amazing bit of work – all credit to them.
5. My son isn’t lying to me, he works with radarsat. Directly. Which is above LEO.
6. Are these people and thousands of others lying to you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEEC1ULcDJw
I doubt more than a handful have ever heard of Rahu.
7. Geostationary satellites are 100 times higher up than low earth orbit. They exist. If they didn’t, my TV wouldn’t work. Nor would Himawari-8, Electro-L, or GOES. And they do, reliably, as they prove to billions of people every day.
Hare Krishna Chris
Thanks for the concise post. It is much easier for me to reply when you do like this.
1. I disagree with your point. The illumination of the moon on a ‘full earth’ day, as they are experiencing at the time of a solar eclipse, is slight compared to a full moon, when it is being illuminated by the sun. Just like the illumination of the earth is slight on a full moon night compared to at noon. However even though the illumination of a full moon on earth is ‘slight’ compared to the sun, it is clearly illuminated and if you were sitting on the moon you would very clearly see the differences between the oceans, the deserts, the forests, etc. And the corona during a total eclipse is not that bright, the whole sky becomes dark and the stars come out like at night. Corona light is not more than the light of a full moon, probably much less because during a total solar eclipse it is much, much darker than on a full moon night. Compare it. Try to go to the next total Solar Eclipse in South America yourself this year. And see it for yourself. Corona is not bright and it is dark, darker than on a full moon night. And the corona is BEHIND the moon, not in front of it. And you have to remember the earth is much more reflective than the moon and has a much much bigger surface area for the sun to reflect off, so a ‘full earth’ on the moon is going to be at least 50 time brighter than a full moon on the earth.
So your points are not valid. If the theory that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun then the moon MUST be illuminated by the earthshine. If it is not the theory is wrong. And illuminated does not mean we have to do special processing in photoshop and superimpose the moon over it… It means we will be able to see the moon come in front of the sun. It is illuminated. If your theory that you can not see because of the corona then take a telescope that can get zoom in on the moon so the corona is not in the frame, then you will be able to see the moon for sure, without any special processing, because at that time actually the moon is the brightest object in the sky, except for the corona, because of the earthshine.
If you can not see the moon come in front of the sun under these conditions then the theory is wrong and there are two possibilities: it is not the moon, it is rahu or our idea about the location of the moon is incorrect and it is much further away causing the earthshine to be less. So either way the modern theory is wrong.
2 Modern Scientists are right about virtually everything.
Yes. You are brainwashed by modern scientists. Whatever they say you just blindly believe. That is the problem. You are not able to think for yourself. You just parrot what the scientists say. But the history actually shows that the scientists have always been wrong. In fact if there is no scope for questioning science then there will never be any scientific advancement. And, if you study it, whenever some brilliant scientist has rightly questioned some incorrect scientific theory that has been accepted by the body of science they are ridiculed and rejected by science.
In reality modern science is wrong about almost everything, that is a conversation that is too long for discussing here. But one point is science says life comes from chemicals. We never see it happening. Everywhere we see life coming from life. We have never experienced life coming from chemicals. In fact life and chemicals are two completely separate things. Science is completely ignorant about life, they have incorrectly concluded that life arises simply from a combination of chemicals. But they can not combine chemicals and produce life. So in this way science is stupid. They see life coming from life all around them but ignorantly, incorrectly, without any proof and without even a valid theory they assert ‘life comes from chemicals.’ They are wrong about this and wrong about most other things also.
3. You have an even better incentive to make stuff up than the scientists do, because you think it would destroy your religion.
No. Krishna consciousness is not a religion. It is the absolute truth. It does not change. We do not ‘make up stuff’. It is written in the Vedas that solar and lunar eclipses are caused by Rahu. So we accept it. And it is true. I personally do not understand it. But our observations during the total solar eclipses tend to support the idea that it is Rahu, not the moon, coming in front of the sun. That is the point I am making in this post. I may be wrong, it may be the moon, but my point is that is not yet established as a fact. You have to admit the possibility. I admit the possibility that it is the moon. But it may not be the moon, that is also a possibility you need to consider.
4.Are the scientists in ISRO lying to you? They’ve launched to Mars. A pretty amazing bit of work – all credit to them.
They don’t know what they are doing. They are completely dependent on NASA to tell them what their spaceships are doing… They didn’t know they discovered water on the moon till NASA told them they discovered water on the moon. So it is just an extension of the same lie spread over different countries in an attempt to make it more believable.
5. My son isn’t lying to me, he works with radarsat. Directly. Which is above LEO.
There may [or may not be] satellites above low earth orbit. That is not the point. The problem is sending people out of low earth orbit. There are many problems, one is radiation. We have to stick to the point. This post is not about satellites, or NASA, or low earth orbit. These are all off-topic. Topic is the solar eclipses and if it is the moon or rahu coming in front of the sun. All these other points are ‘red hearings.’
6. Are these people and thousands of others lying to you?
These people are like you. They blindly believe what is told to them by the scientists. So they are no lying. The have faith in the scientists and are faithfully repeating the doctrine of the scientists. So they have faith in the scientists, we have faith in Krishna. Everyone has faith. It is just a question of who is correct. The scientists or Krishna? But both doctrines are reasonable explanations of what we observe happening in the sky. These things the scientists present are only theories. There is no guarantee that the actual system work in accordance with the scientists theories. But their theories, generally, make fairly accurate predictions of the workings of the system. So they are valid predictive models. But having a model that predicts the operation of a system does not guarantee that the system operates according to your model. This is a very important point to understand.
7. Again you are going off-topic. We are not talking about geostationary sattelites here. That is a completely different topic. We are talking about what causes the solar and lunar eclipses. Is it the moon/earth or is it rahu? So we have to try and stay on this topic.
Are there any rituals to be observed during rahu and ketu?
Any restrictions on food or any activities that vedas prescribe?
Please rest my mind with your answer.
The only ritual in Kali-yuga is chanting Hare Krishna:
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krsihna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare
Thank you, just like on ekadashi we don’t take any grains, similarly is there any such restrictions on days of eclipse. Please share me Your thoughts .
No. Only no eating and no cooking during the eclipse.
Hare Krishna, Madhudvisa Prabhu,
when argumenting with the lack of the earthshine on the Moon disc during the eclipse, do you take in the account the fact that no “shine” is actually emitted towards the Moon from the spot on the Earth from which you are witnessing the eclipse, as the Moon blocks the very light to be reflected back to its surface?
You are speaking craziness here. The moon can not block the light reflected back to it. The solar eclipse only causes a small dot of darkness on the earth, that is about 100 miles across only. The rest of the 8,000 miles across the earth is in full sunshine. So that sunshine of the full earth is directly facing the moon, the Earth becomes like a huge mirror in the sky, directly pointing at the sun and the moon. So if the moon is in front of the sun at the time of a total solar eclipse the moon will be noticeably illuminated by the earthshine. It can not be dark.
I think that it is quite a relevant point, already alluded to by Steve down the comments line. From what you say about the earthshine it is apparent that you leave the umbra effect completely out of account. The umbra means that the surface of the moon facing the Earth is completely screened out from the earthshine which means that the effect of the earthshine you argument with is practically negated during the Eclipse. Even if you stay within penumbra (half-shadow) circle of about 8,000 miles, you still see the face of the moon completely shadowed as no rays reflect back to it from Earth at this particular moment. But it does not mean that the surface of the moon is pitch dark or invisible; it is visible with good lens and exposure. I look forward hearing about the results of your photographing experiment during the next eclipse.
Yes. Steve’s point has some merit for sure. Although compared to the total amount of sunlight that is hitting the earth only a small percentage of it is blocked if the moon comes between the earth and the sun. But the part that is totally blocked is the part that would otherwise be directly inline with the sun and the most reflective part sending the most light back to the moon. So that part that is totally blocked is less than 100 miles wide but the light is dimmed for a much bigger radius as you point out Roodi. You can only see the total solar eclipse in that small, less than 100 mile circle, but outside that circle, for a long way you can see a partial eclipse of the sun. So anywhere you can see any part of the eclipse some of the sunlight is being blocked.
So it may be that the reflection is less than what I have been assuming. But as you point out there is certainly a reflection and the surface of the moon is illuminated. Everyone agrees with this. And we can actually see, even with our naked eyes sometimes, at the time of the new moon, the other part of the moon is illuminated, presumably by the earthshine.
So yes. I will do this experiment at the next total solar eclipse and hopefully many others will also. And we will see if we can get the photos. If we can get the photo, even if it is very dim, that proves it is the moon coming in front of the sun and we will just have to accept that if that is really what is happening. So we will see. Next total solar eclipse is not until July 2, 2019. And it is only visible on land in South America just before sunset. It is happening at sunset at the east coast so one real hope of seeing it on land is on the west coast of South America. Otherwise most of the eclipse is happening over the Pacific ocean. The next one is December 14, 2020 also in South America.
So I will make a serious effort to get the photos then and would encourage as many others also to try as possible.
We could practice taking photos of the earthshine on the new moon [which, although I have not done it yet, I understand is not very difficult]. And I am thinking if we can photograph that nicely we should also be able to photograph the earthshine on the moon during a total eclipse.
So I would be happy to get the photos actually and to know for sure they were real. Then we would know for sure that it is the moon coming in front of the sun, but until we have it completely proven we can keep the possibility open that it is the dark planet Rahu coming in front an the moon going behind the sun. If it is Rahu we will not be able to get the photos, if it is the moon we will be able to get the photos…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
What you’ve not factored in is that earthshine is generally only visible at very specific times – shortly before sunrise, and shortly after sunset. Which obviously isn’t very possible while the sun is high up in the sky.
Still, there are photos on google images showing eclipses in earthshine where you can actually see the “usual features” of the moon quite well.
Hare Krishna Chris
Yes. You are correct. Ordinarily we can clearly see the features of the moon illuminated on the day or two after the new moon. The way the moon works is when there is no moon the moon rises with the sun and sets with the sun but when there is a full moon the moon rises when the sun sets and sets when the sun rises.
The time when you get the maximum earthshine reflecting off the moon is during the day on the earth and when there is no moon [ie at the time of a solar eclipse. At that time, during the eclipse, the moon is high in the sky and the sun is in the same position in the sky. So that is the maximum earthshine time. At that time the earthshine would be much greater than when we can clearly see the moon illuminated on the new moon day.
So because we can see the earthshine clearly on the moon, the moon is clearly illuminated even though it is new moon, just a tiny sliver, but you can pick out the details of the whole moon, due to the earthshine. But at this time, new moon, the moon is still fairly close to the sun. So it is only visible in the sky for a very short time and then it is near the horizon. So this is not a very good time for seeing the earthshine on the moon, but we can see it nonetheless. So, if the theory that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun then at that time the moon will be fully illuminated by the maximum amount of earthshine.
So you can easily tell if the theory of the scientists, that solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun, is true or not. If it is true the moon will be illuminated. You don’t need to look on google for some photo faked in photoshop, of which there are many, because every thoughtful person knows that if the theory the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun is true then the moon MUST be clearly illuminated be the earthsine at that time. So they try to photograph it and fail and then fake the photos… That is the way of science.
If this theory is true you will be able to clearly see, not very brightly, but still quite clearly, like we can see on the new moon day, but brighter than that, all the details of the moon as it comes in front of the sun during a solar eclipse.
However, if it is black, dark, then it is not the moon coming in front of the sun…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Odd, this forum won’t let me reply directly to your last, so I’m re-replying to your previous.
I should say first, that I’m well aware of the astronomical prowess exhibited in the Vedas. They identified axial precession before the Greeks did, and calculated the periodicity with a precision not matched in the west until the 1600s or later. That *is* very impressive for a society that didn’t have telescopes.
There are a couple problems with your explanation, which I’ll outline below in point form, read the whole thing before replying.
– Yes, maximal earthshine straight up is when the sun is straight up from where you are. But, that doesn’t mean you can see earthshine, in fact, it pretty much guarantees you can’t whether there’s a moon in the way or not.
– For much the same reason you can’t see stars with a floodlight shining in your face, you won’t see dim earthshine on the moon when the sun is shining directly on you.
– yes, it sounds like there would be more earth shine on the moon, than moon shine on the earth. But by calculation and *direct* measurement, moon shine is about 1/720th of direct sunshine. That’s fairly dim. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that earth shine on the moon is about 1/200th the strength of the light hitting the earth (which is essentially the same as the sun’s intensity directly hitting the moon). But then in order to see earth shine on the moon, the light reflected off the earth has to bounce *again* off the moon for us to see it. So, instead of seeing 1/200th or even 1/720th, the earthshine reflected off the moon for us to see is about 1/40000th of the light hitting us directly from the sun. That’s dimmer than many stars. that means in order to see it the sky has to be *very* dim – eg: the sun is not shining on you.
– Remember that virtually every occurance of visible earthshine on the moon is when the sun hasn’t quite risen, or has just set, the sky is fairly (or completely) dark. In *neither* case is the sun shining directly on you.
– You may think that if the moon is blocking the sun’s light, that should mean that you can see very dim features on the face of the moon towards you. Not so. The atmosphere is brightly lit off to the side, and the light refracts inwards (only has to refract inwards a few 10ths of a degree) so the side facing you cannot be full dark. It’s too dark to see anything, but it’s still not the full dark of a sunless night.
So to make the above story short: your original assumption that a total eclipse being caused by the moon would always (or even occasionally) mean that the moon’s near face would be visible by bare eyeball by reflected earthshine is incorrect, and is missing a number of important factors – basic things known to astronomers.
Dismissing every photograph due to photoshop is silly. what would be the point of amateur astronomers, like this one:
http://www.astropix.com/eclipse/2017_Total_Solar_Eclipse_Earthshine.html
faking it? The photo is exactly what one would expect to see given the factors at play.
It’s worth noting the magnitudes of the stars he also caught – they’re pinpoints brighter than the moon.
It also seems to me far more likely that simple well known/demonstrable/repeatable optical phenomena are a lot more plausible than “because “. Indeed, even if Rahu was somehow completely light absorbing, you’d still see it in IR, radar or occultation of other objects.
Hare Krishna Chris
Just presume it is Rahu causing the solar eclipses. If an amateur astronomer reads our description he will be convinced that the features of the moon must be visible at the time of a solar eclipse. Which they must be. So he sets up all his equipment to photograph this. And he doesn’t get the photo. So what to do? He knows he should have got it. He knows it must be there. And he wants that spectacular photo that he has worked so hard to get. So Photoshop comes to his aid… That is the way scientists work. If they can’t prove it but they know it is true they fake it.
So, this may not be the case, the solar eclipses may be caused by the moon coming in front of the sun, but in that case the surface of the moon will be clearly visible, just like in the photo you have linked to.
You will note in his photo the corona of the sun is not that bright, and still the features of the moon are clearly visible. That is what a Solar Eclipse MUST look like if the theory that it is caused by the moon coming in front of the sun is true.
As far as seeing Rahu we discussed this before. At the time of the solar eclipse Rahu is in the daytime sky. So if Rahu always stays in the day time sky it will always be completely invisible and undetectable by us. Because during the day you will not see Rahu occulting anything, except at the time of a solar eclipse, which is when it occults the sun.
So this is the Vedic description. Solar eclipses are caused by Rahu, they are not caused by the shadow of the earth. So I am just pointing this out.
And, in the age of Photoshop, any one of us can produce a photo of the moon in front of the sun. That is no proof. The real proof is next time there is a solar eclipse you look at it. And if you can see the features of the moon in front of the sun it is caused by the moon coming in front of the sun. But if you can not, then very likely it is caused by Rahu coming in front of the sun.
So next solar eclipse I will try to take this photo myself, of moon coming in front of the sun, and I suggest you do it also. It should not be difficult, it should be clearly visible to the naked eye, as evidenced by the photo you provided. It should look like that, if the moon is actually coming in front of the sun.
Point is you can see the earthshine on the moon when the sky is still quite bright. Maybe even when the sun is still in the sky. Certainly when it has just set. When there are no stars in the sky. So the earthshine is obviously quite a bit brighter then the stars. It is easy for you to check this on the new moon day each month. Not that you have to wait for a solar eclipse to check this. And my point is earthshine will be greatest at the time of the solar eclipse [no moon day]. So at the time of the solar eclipse the moon will be even more brightly illuminated by the earthshine than on the new moon day.
So yes, it may be possible, but not likely. Because these photos of moon in front of the earth are only a recent phenomenon, they have only appeared within the past 10 years or so. Astronomers have been photographing eclipses for a hundred years now. So why has this just appeared in the past 10 years. Could it have something to do with Photoshop?
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Now I’m afraid you’re just being silly. If they had read my part, an amateur astronomer wouldn’t have assumed the lunar surface would always be visible, but only under special conditions –
like the observer being in the dark (because earthshine is too dim to be seen in daylight).
After all, earthshine has to be dimmer than moonshine, and we can’t see that during the day can we?
Secondly, you’re assuming amateur astronomers are all dishonest and will fake their pictures to agree with what they think is there. So, how does anybody see anything new and unusual?
Only within the past 10 years? Could it be you didn’t look very well? Could it be that there are a lot more amateur astronomers with vastly better cameras and telescopes than 20-30 years ago? Until the advent of digital cameras with interchangeable lenses, such shots were virtually impossible. The sensitivity range of digital cameras is orders of magnitude better than film.
So what other evidence is there that Rahu exists? Why can’t we see it when the sun is at the right angle to be visible like the moon is?
That the Vedas say so means nothing more than some pronouncement from the bible. I’ll also note that belief in Rahu is not universal in Vedic-Hinduism, and many important Hindu astronomers didn’t believe in it either.
Lunar surface MUST be visible during solar eclipse, that is the special circumstance that makes it possible to see the moon completely flooded with the earthshine, which is almost 100 times brighter than the moonshine on the earth. Because normally, as you point out, with the sun high up in the sky, you can not see the earthshine on the moon.
So the reason we can not generally see the earthshine is that during the time we could see it the moon is in the daytime sky, with the sun, and we can not see earthshine on the moon when the sun is in the sky very near to it. That is why we MUST see at the eclipse, if the theory that it is the moon coming in front of the sun that causes the eclipse is true. Because at the time of total eclipse sky is completely dark, stars all come out, it is like night, and that is the time of the full earth on the moon. So at that moment earthshine on the moon is at its maximum. So it must clearly illuminate the surface of the moon. That is why you can see so many photos of the eclipse now, as it should appear, on google images. And certainly there are so many amateur astronomers, a certain percentage of them will certainly cheat to produce a bogus but brilliant photo which will get them a lot of praise and adoration. So I am not saying ALL amateur astronomers are dishonest like this, but there are certainly few dishonest amateur astronomers, so even if it was not possible to take these photos, these photos would appear, by the mercy of Photoshop. Because they know you MUST be able to see the moon in front of the sun, so when they take the photos and can’t see it on their photos, they just superimpose the moon onto it. Not all, but some…
This is true for sure because we CAN see the earthshine on the moon on the new moon day. And new moon is only visible during the daytime, because, as you know, on the no moon day sun and moon are very close in the sky, that makes solar eclipse possible, so on new moon day sun and moon are still close, moon has moved a bit so it sets very soon after the sun sets. So it is in that short time only when the moon is visible with earthshine illuminating the dark part. It is still daylight, although the sun has set, you may say dusk, but it is not dark. Still you can see the earthshine on the moon quite clearly. So at a solar eclipse the sky is MUCH darker so the eartshine on the moon would appear brighter, if the theory moon is coming in front of the sun is true.
So the easy way to work out if it is the moon or Rahu coming in front of the sun is next time there is a total solar eclipse look up at it yourself during totality, if it is totally dark, it is Rahu, or if it appears like the photos you have found on google, with the features of the moon visible in front of the sun, then it is the moon coming in front of the sun.
You do not need any special camera to see the earthshine on the moon on the new moon day, you can see that with your own unaided eyes, even during the daytime. So at the time of the total eclipse also you will not need any special equipment, just look with your eyes.
I am going to try, next total eclipse, with the most sensitive digital cameras, to see if I can get the photo myself. So if I can get it then, of course, it will prove moon is coming in front of the sun. So the point is Vedas says it is caused by Rahu, and we have presented this simple system that anyone can use to check if it is Rahu or the moon causing solar eclipses, and so far it appears it is Rahu. You have to admit that. Moon should look just like the photos you provide during the time of the eclipse. It can not be dark, if it is being caused by the moon, because at that time moon is experiencing a full earth, which is almost 100 times brighter than full moon on earth…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Oh come now, I’ve already debunked that in my first post. Shall we add some more?
– by your very own argument, if earthshine on the moon was so bright as you say, the moon would NEVER show crescents or half moons, it’d ALWAYS be fully lit.
– I shall repeat: for us to see earthshine on the moon, it has to bounce not *once*, but *twice*, greatly losing in intensity each time.
– A ball is not a very good reflector, the most intense reflections would be from that part of earth inline with the moon. But there’s something in the way – the moon! – hence the most brilliant earthshine is absent in the reflection. See the photos from the ISS of the last great eclipse to see how dark the earth gets – not just in totality, but the rest of the shadow. Hence there’s not nearly as much earthshine to hit the moon in the first place.
– Earthshine is only seen in exceptional viewing conditions. As dark as a total eclipse is, it is nowhere NEAR as dark as full night. Note well: the sky is still blue, and you can only see a few very bright stars – which means it’s nowhere near as dark as full night.
– We can see eclipses/occultation of the planets, and moons of other planets. No Rahu required.
– Eclipses occur EXACTLY where the orbital calculations put the moon to be. In fact, so precise and detailed, that they can determine where the “eclipse jewels” (look it up) within a few metres. Hint: the “jewels” are sunlight peeking through mountain passes on the limbs (don’t get hot and bothered, it’s an astronomical term meaning “edges”) of the moon.
I’m sure that super-fast photography and very high zoom could in fact see earthshine on the moon during an eclipse. I encourage you to try – use a camera with very very high ISO equivalence, and a high zoom that will see the moon only, and everything else out of the frame.
Oh cool, someone has done it already:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8LVSCAVCPY
Around 4:50 it gets very good.
Oh, while I’m here, I have another bone to pick with you. You’ve claimed that laser observation is only done in *one* place on earth with a cobbled together 8″ telescope and a fanciful fakery of the measurement.
In fact, you simply can’t do it with a 8″ telescope. Not big enough.
The *slightest* bit of web search will prove what you said to be nonsense.
There’s at least four observatories where these measurements are routine currently. I’ll give you a few along with the sizes of their telescopes:
Occasional:
Wetzell in Bavaria
Goddard at JPL.
Lick Observatory (3.1m)
Current:
Apache Point – Collaboration of University of California, San Diego (Tom Murphy Principal investigator), University of Washington, Harvard, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Lincoln Laboratory, Northwest Analysis, Apache Point Observatory, and Humboldt State using a 3.5m telescope – rather bigger than 8″ doncha think?
Here’s some photos of the equipment:
http://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/onscope.html
The McDonald Observatory MLRS2 (Texas – 30″)
CERGA (now Côte d’Azur) Laser ranging station (France)
We won’t enumerate all the radar and radio amateurs doing moon bounce communications.
Some of the points you make are good, others show your complete misunderstanding. So, as far as I am concerned I am an expert on Krishna consciousness. I am not an expert on other things. And all I am doing is presenting the information as it is presented in the Bhagavata Cosmology for your consideration. There it is described that solar and lunar eclipses are caused by a dark planet called Rahu, not by the shadow of the earth. At this time it is not proven either way. So I am open to the possibility of the eclipses being caused by the moon, but it does not appear, according to the Bhagavata Cosmology, that the moon is where we think it is. So I am suggesting there may be many flaws in our understanding of the cosmos above our heads.
But you are misunderstanding many things.
– by your very own argument, if earthshine on the moon was so bright as you say, the moon would NEVER show crescents or half moons, it’d ALWAYS be fully lit.
From the moon the earth also appears in phases as we see the moon in phases, but the earth is going through all phases in 24 hours. So the only time we are going to see earthshine on the moon is when the earth is full from the moon and the moon is in the sky. That can never happen. Because if the there is a full earth on the moon it means it is daytime on the earth and the sun is in the sky. That is when all the light is being reflected back to the moon. So we can get a slight glimpse of it on the new moon day, but not very much. But solar eclipse gives us the only time when we can see the full strength earthshine on the moon. Otherwise when there earthshine is on the moon it is daytime on the earth and we can’t see it because the sun is in the sky. So how come you can not work out such simple things? If you make a mistake on such a basic point then you have to question everything else.
– I shall repeat: for us to see earthshine on the moon, it has to bounce not *once*, but *twice*, greatly losing in intensity each time.
Another point you seem to be incapable of grasping is it is the same principle as moonshine on the earth. The sun lights up the moon and the reflection bounces onto the earth and lights up the earth on a full moon night. However the difference is the earth is far more reflective than the moon and much, much bigger. So the brightness of the earthshine on the moon is more than 50 times brighter than the moonshine on the earth. So why can not you understand such simple things?
Some of your other points are OK, but as far as the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment on the Moon it is only regularly done at MacDonald Observatory in Texas. They have a permanent set-up there and they use a telescope with a 12 inch mirror to do it. THEY DO NOT USE THE 30″ TELESCOPE FOR THIS. They do have a 30″ telescope, but they have a separate dedicated 12″ telescope for the Luna Laser Ranging experiment. I have been there personally with them doing it so I am very familiar with this. Of course in other places like France, etc, they have done it from time to time, the French claim they can even do it during the daytime, we used to do it in Australia also, but no more, and the Australian astronomers laughed at the French claims they could do it in the daytime. In Australia, even though we are in the best location to do it, we were never able to conclusively prove that we were getting reflections from the moon. For the moon 12 inch telescope is sufficient. And that is what they use at MacDonald Observatory, that is what they have been using since the 1970’s. This experiment is such a cheating experiment, the way it set up. If you did it honestly you would flash the laser and wait for the return to come back from the moon. But that doesn’t work… So what the do is pulse the laser, having it flash every few seconds, and for each flash they have a little computer, because they already know the distance to the moon, they open the detector at the exact millisecond they expect the return to come back from the moon, it is a green laser, so if they find some green light they presume it has reflected off the moon… It is so unscientific so cheating, and so ridiculous. Most of their mirrors are only 1 foot square. It’s a joke. I don’t have the time and energy to write about this joke here.
So I can not go through all your points, yes, I agree there is a possibility solar eclipses are being caused by moon coming in front of the sun, that is the obvious conclusion one would come to, and yes, at the time of solar eclipse sun and moon are in the same place in the sky. So you know, it is not rocket science to conclude that moon is coming in front of the sun and causing the eclipse. I am just putting it out there that there does seem to be a different explanation in the Vedas and that is more consistent with seeing a totally dark thing coming in front of the sun, because if it was the moon coming in front of the sun it would be illuminated by the earthshine.
And astronomers and scientists agree with me, they say the moon is illuminated by the earthshine during a solar eclipse. So there is no question about this. So there is no point you arguing anything else. The moon must be illuminated by the eartshine during a solar eclipse, it can not be totally dark. Unless, of course, it is not the moon, but Rahu coming in front of the sun.
So don’t worry, I am open to the possibility it is the moon, but you have to be also open to the possibility it is not the moon, but Rahu, a dark planet, causing the solar and lunar eclipses…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Scroll down and you can see earthshine during an eclipse. Notice the effort the photographer had to go to make it visually obvious:
https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-45978380
Yes. And look at the photo of the eclipse below it, totally dark.
The problem is there is a great incentive for this photographer to cheat and superimpose the moon on the top of his eclipse photo to get an award-winning photo. So many people are like that. They will cheat to win the prize.
So if it is true. If you can actually take a photo with a 2 second exposure of the total eclipse and see the moon there then it is there. But there is no proof of this yet. That is the problem with science. There are so many lying and cheating scientists. NASA put on a whole show, pretending to have men on the moon, and now they tell us they don’t know how to send men to the moon… You know liers, cheaters. They become very attached to their theories and will lie to support their ideas. So very clearly I am not saying that this image is a fake, but I am saying there is no way I can know if this image is real or a fake. I think there is solar eclipse in South America next year. So I will go there and try and get the photo myself and would suggest that you try for it yourself also, honestly, without cheating, and without any attachment to either theory. Keep your mind open. Investigate the other possibilities. Things may not always be exactly as the scientists teach us they are… So it may be the moon, but it may be Rahu also… We do not know for sure at this time.
You yourself say you’re not an expert in matters other than Krishna Consciousness (KC), yet you comment on issues other than KC. In contrast, I am an expert in those other issues you are commenting on, and don’t presume to comment AT ALL on KC.
Who is presuming to comment outside of their expertise? Not I….
Hare Krishna Chris
Yes. I am an expert on Krishna Consciousness, not astrology. But I do understand and appreciate the model that scientists present and understand their explanation of the solar eclipses and their explanation of the workings of the sun-moon-earth system. And I have spent time at the Apache Point observatory in Texas with the scientists there doing the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment, for example.
But the problem is that you, claiming to be an expert scientist and astronomer, do not show from your writing that you have a clear conception of how the model used by science is working, nor do you appear to have any practical experience in the area, nor do you appear to have clearly thought your points through properly. So what is the point of you writing faulty points over and over again and expecting me to reply to your nonsense? For example go yourself to the Appache Point observatory in Texas and you will see they are using a telescope with a 12″ mirror for the Luna Laser Ranging experiment. And this is the only place in the world where this experiment is performed regularly [every day] currently. Because they are funded by NASA to do it. So all your points are like this. You have no idea of what the ideas of science are or what the scientists are doing… Yes. You will see on the internet they are doing it with a 3.5 m telescope, and they may do it with that telescope sometimes, but the regular daily LLR work is really done with the 12″ telescope. Go there and see it for yourself…
“Yes. And look at the photo of the eclipse below it, totally dark. The problem is there is a great incentive for this photographer to cheat and superimpose the moon on the top of his eclipse photo”.
You say “he has great incentive”. Many of these photographers have no knowledge *whatsoever* about Rahu, and have no incentive one way or another. They’ve heard of “earthshine” and eclipses, and say “that would be quite a technical challenge to pull this off, so let’s give it a shot”….. [long post trimmed…]
Hare Krishna Chris
I trimmed your religious zealot post.
I have already admitted you may be correct. You just make the same points over and over again, which we have already mentioned over and over again. So if you are confused reread the article.
I am just pointing out a model that is described in the Vedas, and pointing out that what we experience during a lunar eclipse is more consistent with the Vedic model than what we would expect if the moon coming in front of the sun model was true.
The point is if the moon comes in front of the sun, it is experiencing full earth at that time, and the earthshine will be about 50 times brighter on the moon than the moonshine is on earth on a full moon night. So, according to this model, the moon must be clearly illuminated by the earthshine during a total solar eclipse. If it is not there is a problem with the model. That is all I am suggesting.
So I have already said next solar eclipse I will personally take the photos and see if I can get the moon coming in front of the sun.
You need to accept that not everything you have been taught by science is correct. In fact that is the true scientific mind. The actual scientists does not just blindly believe in what he is taught. He thinks about it and tries to understand things better and discover new things.
So there is no point in you just writing the same thing over and over and over again. Everything you have written has already been written in this thread and I have already commented on all the points you bring up. So reread the article, read the other comments and my answers. There is no need to repeat what is already there.
You make good points and obviously what appears to be happening at the time of a solar eclipse is the moon certainly appears to be coming in front of the sun. But we do not know for sure that is what is happening. That is what appears to be happening. And that theory is certainly a good predictive model, good science in the sense that the model predicts what we observe happening. But there is still a chance that the system may be working in a way that is different to our model.
So don’t worry, I am completely familiar with the model of the moon coming in front of the sun causing eclipses, and that may be the way it happens, but if that is the case the moon will be clearly illuminated during solar eclipses. There is no escaping this. If the moon is not illuminated during solar eclipses there is some mistake in the model. The earth is practically a mirror. Like 70-80% reflective. Oceans and atmosphere of earth are very reflective. And fully illuminated earth is directly facing the moon at the time of the solar eclipse, fifty times brighter than a full moon. So moon MUST be clearly illuminated during a solar eclipse. Otherwise your model is wrong.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
I’m learning about solar and lunar eclipses. They are happening all over the world every 2 years.
This is Reece,zooming out!
Thank you very very very very very very very much
im dying i was doing some research on solar eclipses at school and i stumbled across this ??? ayy lmao most surreal thing on earth.??
A lot has been said so far about the cosmos macro-level from the viewpoint of Srimad Bhagavatam; are there also some other pieces of information from this Sacred Book on the micro-level of the universe regarding composition of matter, subatomic particles, their non-locality, etc.? Some Hare Krishnas claim that there are even verses about particle compounding…
Hare Krishna Roodi
Yes. Some information is there about particle physics. Mostly modern physics is rubbish. Yes. There is a lot of scientific information in the Bhagavatam…
Perhaps this might be worthy of your consideration. Not just westerners, indian astronomers too believed that shadows of moon and earth caused solar and lunar eclipses
http://varahamihiragopu.blogspot.com/2014/10/varahamihiras-eclipse-proof.html
Hare Krishna
Yes. Obviously Indian astronomers have also put forward the theory that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in between the earth and the sun. This is the obvious conclusion that anyone, even a child, would come to. That is certainly what appears to be happening.
But things are not always actually happening in the way they appear to be happening.
The Vedas is principally the writings of Srila Vyasadeva, including the four Vedas, the 18 Puranas, the 108 Upanisads, Mahabharata and everything culminates in Srimad-Bhagavatam [one of the Puranas].
So when we speak of the Vedic conception of astronomy we are referring to what is described in the books of Srila Vyasadeva. In these books it is very clearly described that solar and lunar eclipses are caused by a dark planet Called Rahu. Not by the moon. In fact the moon is described in the Vedas as not orbiting earth as we are told, well yes, it is orbiting earth, but the earth is in the centre and the sun and moon are both orbiting earth… So the Vedic description is totally different from the Western ideas.
So of course in India you can find all ideas, all theories, all types of astronomy. But we are not concerned with that. We are concerned with investigating what is the Vedic concept, not what some Indian astronomer may believe.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
That is a fake picture of the earth, which is not a globe. Vedic cosmology describes the earth as a plane, with other worlds above and below – the higher the more heavenly and divine, the lower the more demonic and evil. Nikola Tesla said we live in an electromagnetic realm, with the heavenly bodies and luminaries (star and planets) spinning around Polaris (North Star) above us in the firmament. Just saying that the earth is not a globe, and all pictures of a globe earth are fake, as are most satellite pictures. They probably do launch surveillance modules way up high into space, but the are not “satellites” going around a globe earth!
If that’s what you think, then you obviously didn’t understand what you were seeing. The reason why you will find the earth to be flat in the Vedas, is because it’s meant only to be a 2D diagram of what things look like from above or below. Everything will always look flat in 2D. The reason it was done that way, is because it’s much easier to explain and make annotations on things made in 2D.
When you look at the sky… does the sun look flat to you? Does the moon look flat?. when you use a telescope, does Saturn look flat? Does Venus look flat?. The answer is no. They’re all a sphere, a globe. The only logical thing to follow is that the earth is also a globe, just like everything else in the solar system you can see with your eyes. There’s obviously a principle behind it.
Don’t mislead people into thinking nonsense and then attributing it to the Vedas. Comments like yours only make people doubt the truth in the Vedas because of your wrong understanding.
Just like uninitiated people should not preach the dhamma (to avoid it’s corruption or create wrong view), people without enough knowledge and correct understanding shouldn’t quote or attempt to explain the Vedas.
I’m a westerner (from Mexico) with a high respect for the Vedas, Hinduism, The Yogis of India and Tibet and Buddhism. Comments like the one you made are what make all these treasures of knowledge difficult to come into countries like mine. People dismiss them as rubbish because quacks like you make them sound like medieval nonsense, when in reality, they’re what we should all be learning worldwide.
Einstein’s theory of relativity came from the Vedas, and he admitted this himself during his lifetime.
Hare Krishna William
The description of the universe in Srimad-Bhagavatam is most certainly not in 2D, it is 3D.
It is Srila Prabhupada’s conviction that Western scientists have got most things wrong, and he has said particularly the two areas of the origin of life [they say life comes from chemicals, we know life comes from life] and the universe. So we know from Srila Prabhupada that the current understanding of the universe we have from science is completely wrong.
At the same time the current flat earth movement also has everything completely wrong. At least science, with the globe earth model, have given us a working predictive model that does logically explain almost everything we see happening in the sky and around is. We know from Srila Prabhupada it is very incorrect, but still it is a valid scientific model that makes good predictions which mostly match what we observe.
On the other hand the flat earth people have no agreed model and whatever ideas they present simply don’t work. So they have no way of explaining how the world could be flat and at the same time we would experience what we are seeing around us.
So from the perspective of a scientist one has to accept the globe earth model and reject the flat earth model as being totally non-scientific. At the moment it is just blind faith on the part of the flat earth people, it is like a religion.
It is true that the planets, the sun and the moon are obviously globes. If you look in a good telescope that is obvious. But your comment that ‘because the sun, moon and planets are globe, the earth must also be a globe’ is not valid.
Earth may or may not be a globe, it is just speculation to say that because there are globes above us we must be on a globe… But realistically there are many things that support the conclusion that we are on a globe. What we see happening in the sky is consistent with what you would see from a spinning globe, it is presumed lunar eclipses are caused by the shadow of the earth, which appears on the moon as circular. And there are quite a few other points that tend to hint that the earth is a globe…
So at this point I can not say. Earth is not described as a globe in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. It is something quite different. So overall we do not understand at the moment what the earth is. The globe earth and flat earth theories are there but in reality most likely neither of them is correct.
As far as Einstein’s theory of relativity coming from the Vedas that is nonsense. His theory is nonsense. Nonsense does not come from the Vedas…
I am exploring these ideas somewhat at https://flatearthfacts.com
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
NASA is faking all of their photos and videos. None if it is real. Research….
No. I won’t research. Because telling someone on the internet to “do the research” is always, ALWAYS their way of saying “I have no evidence whatsoever to back up my ludicrous claims.”
If you have evidence that NASA as faking their photos, YOU show me what it is.
Imbecile.
I bet you believe NASA sent men to the moon also?
But NASA is not able to send men to the moon now?
In fact no men have ever even left low earth orbit. They can not leave low earth orbit now. So they could not leave low earth orbit in the 1960’s and 1970’s…
So that means ALL the moon pictures, the live television coverage from the moon… and the films, they are all FAKE…
Even NASA openly admits they do not yet have the technology to enable them to send humans through the dangerous Van Alen Radition belts for example. They are still working on it. Perhaps in 20 or 50 years they think they may be able to get a man out of low earth orbit without killing him…
But at the current point in time we have no technology which is capable of safely carrying a man from the earth to the moon, what to speak of landing there and speeding around for days in dune buggeys powered by a few 1960’s 12 volt batteries. The whole thing was powered by a few 12 volt batteries. They had no solar panels then. Only a few 12 volt batteries. And that powered their stay on the moon for 3-4 or more days, powered their life support systems, they carried all that oxygen they need for 3-4 days for 2 people with them, you know it is crazy, impossible, if you think about it.
So if you actually believe this impossible story I humbly suggest you have not honestly and critically thought about it. You are just a blind religious fanatic believing in the church of NASA.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Type into google
Robert Simmon
It will be the first link on there. He clearly states in his interview that he created the blue marble using API’s . Computer software programs. He also says that the hardest part of his job creating the globe, was creating a flat map and wrapping it around a ball.
If you want to be fair, calling someone an imbecile because you lack the knowledge that is clearly made public, shows a lot about believing what complete strangers tell you too. The last photograph of one entire side of earth, was in 1972. Apollo 17 mission. So he is correct on that picture being a fake. If it’s not the same one from 1972, then he is correct. And every other image of earth after that is not real. It’s the work of a data visualizer. But I’m sure you knew that already. And btw, when and if you decide to search google for the name mentioned above. What you will immediately notice, is that the link is from the direct source. Nasa . But just Incase you decided to be lazy and not do it. I’ll provide it here for you . I understand that not everyone likes to do their own research. ?♂️
Give an idiot an inch of rope, and he’ll figure out how to hang himself with it.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html
NASA is not the only one space agency in the other — there are many others operating for many decades (Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, EU…) and producing photos, interplanetary or orbit probes, space telescopes. Do you think that they are all conspiring against us? If yes, what specific reason do they have to do it?
Hare Krishna Roodi
Certainly the manned moon missions by NASA were fake. That we know for certain. NASA even openly admits that now, more than 50 years later, they are still unable to send men outside of low earth orbit.
So if we can’t send men out of low earth orbit now in 2017 we certainly could not send men to the moon in 1968.
So we know NASA faked the moon landings. So if they faked that then how much else have they faked? That we do not know.
And other countries also know NASA faked the moon landings, so for national prestige, etc, they also create space programs…
Certainly they can put things and even manned space craft up in low earth orbit. So they have satellites and the space station, etc, and probably they can send people up and down from the space station, etc. But it appears that it is not possible, at least at this time, to send people beyond low earth orbit.
So what they are doing or not doing is very hard to know because they don’t tell us the truth…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
NASA has never admitted the moon missions, or any of their missions, were fake, as far as I know. I wish they would. What is your source for that?
Hare Krishna Laurel
Yes you are correct in the sense that NASA has not come out and directly said “The moon missions are fake.” But they have said that at present [2017] “we can only send humans in earth orbit”, also they say there are unsolved problems for sending men through the van-allen radiation belts for example. Currently it is not possible to send men though this area. They need to develop lighter radiation shielding before it will be possible.
So this is effectively saying that the Apollo manned moon missions were fake. If now, in 2017, NASA can only send men up into earth orbit, no future, and if now in 2017 there are still unresolved problems that prevent NASA from sending men through the van allen radiation belts then it means that they also could not do it in 1967 or whenever the first faked moon landing was.
How can you possibly believe they had all those successful manned trips to and back from the moon [1/2 million miles round trip] with no problems and every since then we have only been able to send men up to orbit the earth [100 – 200 miles maximum…]
So actually any thoughtful person, any scientist who has a few brains, they know NASA’s Apollo manned moon missions were faked…
Do you really seriously believe that NASA sent men to the moon in the 1960’s and now NASA can’t send men to the moon?
The problem is they can’t really fake it now. Because if they send men to the moon there will have to be some activity going on on the moon, and moon is not that far away and there are so many big telescopes which can see the moon, so there is no way you can have men going to the moon even on a small scale and doing things there, like mining, or anything really, without making some visible impact. If they make a settlement there we will see the lights when the moon is dark… You know. It is impossible to have men working on the moon without us being able to see some evidence of it from the earth…
So NASA can fake the moon mission, but can’t fake the evidence that we would be able to see from earth as a result of the human presence on the moon…
That is why they are pushing for Mars… Far enough away to fake…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hare Krishna Madhudvisa
I read your article and I read the comments below.
I still do not know what is the truth, because I believe the Veda and Gita are much vast than we think it to be.
For me in the Vedas, Modern Mathematics equations was not possible as things are Algebra or Calculus as we see them today were not invented, so the Scientists of the Vedic language created Sanskrit which a language to represent the Modern Mathematics. I find the Gender in Sanskrit acts as a variable.
Same concept is followed when Pingala created the Number Sequence which we later came to know as the Fibonacci series. Pingala created the sequence with variations of syllables or pronunciation of words.
The astronomical model depicted in Veda is Geocentric which means the model is created relative to Earth instead of Sun (Heliocentric)… which seems logical as if we have to determine the cosmos effect of matters living in Earth we have to think relative to the Earth.
However there is much to learn much to know.
May the great Krishna endeavour the power in me to understand the things as he wanted to depict.
Hare Krishna
The ambient light from the sun clearly overpowers any reflection you would see from the moon with the naked eye. Not to mention the fact that there would be very little direct radiation from the Earth back to the moon in completely obscured areas due to curvature of the Earth outside the Moon’s shadow. What strange false logic you have used.
Regards,
Noah
Hare Krishna Noah
You have not thought about this. You do not have a clear idea of the idea of modern science or what is happening according to them.
Actually scientists agree with me. They agree that at the time of the eclipse the moon in front of the sun should be the brightest object in the sun, except for the corona around it, which is giving about as much light as a full moon would give.
So there is no reason the face of the moon should not be illuminated, if the scientists’ theory is correct…
They say you can’t see it because of the brightness of the corona, but they agree that certainly if you looked in a telescope and just look at the moon then the features should be clearly visible…
So the general opinion now is the moon is clearly visible during the solar eclipse. And they are posting plenty of photos now on the internet to show this. The only problem is when you look at the eclipse there is no moon there, it is completely dark. Even though the surface of the moon is being blasted with the earthshine which is equal to the light of approximately fifty full moons on earth…
So just imagine how bright the earth would be if there were fifty full moons in the sky, so at the time of the moon coming in front of the sun at the solar eclipse the surface of the moon is illuminated with the strength of 50 full moons in the sky. So it is obviously not like a full moon when it is illuminated by the sun, but it must be very clearly visible when it comes in front of the sun…
But it is not. So there is some mistake in the scientists’ theory of the cause of solar eclipses…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hi,
But that is just what I was saying except in different words. Ambient light = light from corona + other reflected light from atmosphere, etc. It’s really not that complicated. You are being deceived by your senses — our eyes won’t pick up something as dark as the moon when the ambient light is that strong — as an experiment, just hold a tennis ball in front of a flashlight and see if you can make out the tennis ball’s features… BTW, I am a scientist by trade, albeit not an astronomer.
Regards,
Noah
Hare Krishna Noah
If you take a telescope and zoom in on the surface of the tennis ball as long as it is illuminated from the front you will be able to see the features of it. No matter how bright your flashlight is behind the tennis ball. If the front is illuminated it is illuminated. And if you zoom in on it with your telescope you can see all the details of the tennis ball.
So according to the scientists at the time of the solar eclipse the moon is the brightest object in the sky except for the corona. So yes. I agree of course, if you look at the moon you may not be able to see the details with your naked eyes but if you take your telescope and zoom in on the moon it must be clearly visible as the details of the tennis ball will be visible to you if you do the experiment with the torch behind it.
That is my point. It makes no difference what is behind the moon. At the time of the eclipse the moon must be quite significantly illuminated by the earthshine. So the features must be visible.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
They don’t say that the Moon should be the brightest object at the time of eclipse. The brightest thing (in comparison to Sun and Moon) is still the Sun. It is brighter than Moon and that is the reason we cannot make out the details of Moon with naked eyes.
You are contrasting yourself in the same comment. In first paragraph you say, we can see the details with the help of a telescope and you also say that during eclipse we see details of moon which we cannot see due to extreme brightness of corona. But that is the Moon which is in front of the Sun.
Of course at the time of the total eclipse of the sun the sun is completely covered but the corona of the sun is visible, and that is equivalent to about the same amount of light as the full moon would give. So that is not very bright, and it is very spread out around the moon. And this light is behind the moon. So it can have no effect on the front of the moon facing earth. That must be illuminated by the earthshine, and that makes the moon the brightest object in the sky, the sun is no longer in the sky, it is totally covered, but yes, the corona is still brighter than the moon, but the moon must be still quite clearly illuminated. There is no bright light in the sky to stop you from seeing the moon. That is why you can take off the glasses and look at the eclipse with your naked eyes during totality. Because the sun is totally covered and the corona is not very bright and it is behind the moon.
I do not say we can see the details with the help of a telescope. Actually I don’t think anyone says this. Although if it is true that solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun, you could certainly see the moon in front of the sun with a telescope. But no one ever saw the moon in front of the sun until about ten years ago when I started talking about this earthshine. Then a few pictures started popping up on the internet claiming to be the moon in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. Generally they say these are taken by stacking multiple exposures which is a way astronomers use to get something very dim to appear in a photo.
So I don’t know if these photos are real or not. There are very few of them, and only in the past ten years or so. In the hundreds of years before no one ever saw the moon in front of the sun, now, of course, with Photoshop, it is easy to put the moon in the front of the sun if you believe it must be there. And scientists and astronomers believe it must be there. I am open to the possibility it is not there, but behind the sun. So I will be trying to photograph it myself at the next solar eclipse and I suggest others try also.
This is the way of proving one way or the other. I am not saying certainly what is happening because I don’t know. I am just pointing out that if the moon comes in front of the sun then the face of the moon must be illuminated, it can not be dark.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Scientists don’t agree with you. That is a lie.
Of course scientists agree with me, not about Rahu, but about the fact that the earth is completely illuminated by the sun at the time of a solar eclipse and that the earth reflects light and because the earth is much bigger and much more reflective than the moon that the earthshine on the moon at the time of the solar eclipse will be like having 50 full moons in the sky on earth. So scientists agree on all these points. They agree that the moon must be illuminated by the earthshine at the time of the solar eclipse.
So scientists agree that the moon must be illuminated by earthshine at the time of the eclipse, and they say it must be the brightest object in the sky at that time. However it does not appear to be. That is the problem I am pointing out in this article.
Interesting. But then why wouldn’t Rahu block the starts? We never see that happening.
Hare Krishna Laurel
Yes. Is is a good point. The explanation is that Rahu hides in the shadow of the moon. Exactly how this works I do not know. But there is some way that Rahu manages to stay hidden, so it is not obviously blocking stars that we would notice…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hare Krishna!
In India all those people who have not studied bogus theories of modern science are sure that Rahu causes the eclipse and also that it hides out of fear of Lord Vishnu’s Sudarshan Disc!
1) Srila Prabhupada translates SB 5.24.2: “…Rahu is always inimical toward both the sun and the moon, and therefore he always tries to cover the sunshine and the moonshine on the dark-moon day and the full-moon night.”
2) Srila Prabhupada writes in SB 5.24.3 purport “…Rahu cannot stay in front of the sun or the moon for more than a muhurta (48 minutes). The phenomenon that occurs when Rahu blocks the light of the sun or the moon is called an eclipse…”
3) Srila Prabhupada translates SB 8.9.24: “Rahu, the demon who causes eclipses of the sun and moon, covered himself with the dress of a demigod…”
4) Srila Prabhupada writes in SB 5.24.2: “…This means that Rahu is twice as large as the moon, which is twice as large as the sun.”
5) Srila Prabhupada translates in SB 5.22.8: “Above the rays of the sunshine by a distance of 800,000 miles is the moon, which travels at a speed faster than that of the sun…”
These statements seem to confirm that Rahu goes in FRONT of the sun thus causing a solar eclipse. As far as where is the moon during a solar eclipse, according to #4 and #5 above, Rahu is larger than both the sun and the moon, and the moon is farther away (or in back of) the sun. Thus, if during a solar eclipse, the sun and moon are aligned one in front of the other and Rahu is in front of the sun, the moon would also not be visible. On the solar eclipse of a few days ago (August 2017) the sun and moon were both in the constellation of Leo, so perhaps the moon was aligned right behind the sun and Rahu and thus could not be seen.
Hare Krishna Lisa
You can not just pick out a few lines and make conclusions from that. You have to read everything and consider everything. There are so many other references to these points in Srimad-Bhagavatam and they all have to be considered.
But yes, of course it is written that solar eclipses are caused by Rahu coming in front of the moon. But exactly how it happens and what is the arrangement at least I am not able to understand it at this point in time to be able to explain it in a proper way.
So I am going to read all of Srila Prabhupada’s books again and pray to Srila Prabhupada and Krishna for inspiration and if they want me to understand it then maybe they will give me some inspiration…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hare Krishna!
Thank you for this wonderful site.
I agree with you about the eclipse and other matters regarding the fake stories we are told about going to the moon etc.
“They” have hidden the truth about the “heavenly bodies” for a long long time.
The interesting thing is how people just believe what they are told to believe even though they can plainly see the obvious truth in front of their own eyes.
Thanks again for this wonderful site!
my main point was that sp says that rahu comes in front of the SUN as opposed to saying that during a solar eclipse it’s the MOON that’s coming in front of the sun.
Hare Krishna Lisa
Yes. That is the Vedic conclusion, that solar and lunar eclipses are caused by Rahu, not by the Moon.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hi!
There are many examples of amateurs having succeeded in catching the earthshine of the moon during totality, some with multiple exposures, some just with a single long exposure.
The corona ist still way too bright compared to the earthshine to see it with bare eyes.
Google for “solar eclipse earthshine” images – only very few by scientists.
Best regards,
Marius
Hare Krishna Marius
Yes. There are a few images out there. But these days it is a problem because it is so easy to make these images in photoshop.
And people will do it. It is obvious that you should be able to see the moon coming in front of the sun, and it should be clearly visible. So even if it is not the case they will make these images in photoshop and post them on the internet…
So it is still undetermined at this point…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Earthshine during a solar eclipse. It’s clearly the Moon. Vedic astronomy is wrong.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/earthshine-during-the-2008-total-solar-eclipse/
I read the post with interest. However, I am not clear on your assertion that Rahu “hides in the shadow of the moon” given that you also claim that during a “lunar” eclipse, you say that the moon goes behind the sun (or is permanently further from us than the sun) and it is Rahu which, in fact, blocks the sun.
When you say “hides in the shadow of the moon”, I take that to mean that it is behind the moon. If that is not correct, then please clarify.
And if my assumption is correct (that by “hides in the shadow of the moon” you mean that Rahu is substantially behind the moon – or, at least, between the moon and the sun) then how can it block the sun during a “lunar” eclipse, since to hide in the shadow of the moon, it must be behind it.
Please clarify this point.
Thanks!
Hare Krishna Sam
I do not completely understand, I just know that is mentioned in the Vedic texts, that Rahu hides in the shadow of the moon. Exactly how, I am not sure. But the moon is definitely further away than Rahu. Rahu is somewhere close to where we think the moon is and the moon is much further away, further away and larger than the Sun. I know it sounds radical and impossible but that is only because we are used to the model which we have been taught constantly as a fact since our birth. So to contemplate the Vedic model of to cosmos we have to be prepared, at least theoretically, to forget all we have been taught and take a fresh look at it.
So I do not understand it completely. I am just repeating what I have read that ‘Rahu hides in the shadow of the moon…’. Rahu is certainly hiding in the shadow of the moon at the time of the solar eclipse. That is what has confused us. Because Rahu and the moon are in the same place in the sky, Rahu is hiding in the shadow of the moon. It is the no moon day when the solar eclipse occurs, so we can not see the moon, it is dark, so Rahu hides in front of the dark moon. So we can not detect Rahu at this time, we think it is the moon. The only way we can detect Rahu is at the time of a solar eclipse. Because Rahu is a dark planet, it does not reflect light, the moon reflects light. So if it is Rahu coming in front of the sun then it will be dark, as we observe, but if it is the moon coming in front of the sun causing the eclipse, then the moon will be being bombarded by a stunning full-earth and will be bathed in earthshine which will be brighter than 50 full moons above the earth. So if it is the moon coming in front of the sun the eclipse will not be dark, the moon will be clearly visable in the brilliant earthshine reflected off the dazzling full-earth.
So because during the solar eclipse we have all seen now it is completely dark, that disproves the theory that solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun. We need to find a new theory…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Dear Madhudvisa dasa,
I am still not clear on the specific operations of Rahu (incidentally, I confused “lunar” eclipse with “solar” eclipse in my original question) – but then you are open about the fact that it is something of an enigma to you also. Which is honest and fair.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Peace and best wishes,
Sam
Riddle me this. If we know exactly the distance the moon is from earth from laser measurement, to the last cm. Then tell me why is it that when astronomers measure the solar eclipse they noticed its the same exact distance as the moon ???
Hare Krishna Tom
It is nonsense, the laser experiment. Why don’t you investigate it yourself and you will see. It is ridiculous. I even went and spent many nights at the only place they do it regularly, which is in a trailer in an observatory in Texas. So I know everything about this experiment in very great detail. They have a 12″ telescope and a relitavely small green laser which they fire through the telescope and they have a detector in the telescope. But it is not that they can fire a laser at the moon and get a return… It is a very unpredictable experiment. Firstly they fire the laser every couple of seconds, they have a computer that calculates the exact moment when they are expecting to get a return from the moon and only then is the detector turned on…
So the experiment is rigged. They already presume they know the exact distance to the moon so they only activate the detector at that instant and if they find some green light they presume it has bounced off the moon and come back into their telescope…
It is not that they can leave the detector open all the time and they will be able to see returns from the moon. Because it is just green light, and they are only expecting to detect a few photons. And there is always green light hanging around anyhow,,,
So the experiment is totally bogus.
Actually they do not know the correct distance to the moon, that is one of the reasons they have obviously not been to the moon…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Namskar,
Finally someone who truly understands how eclipses work. The problem with scientists is that they merely rely on theories, conjectures and what other scientists have said without realising that the ancient seers through their superior spiritual powers had seen the world as it is. Why not simply use the Vedas which are 100% perfect instead of wasting precious money on space stations, moon missions and what not ?
In India it has been common knowledge that Rahu causes the eclipse it only in last 200 years this moon business has come into picture. Are you going to trust 10000 year old divine knowledge or 200 year old human theories ?
Brilliant!
Hare Krishna
Its a lot more than 10000 Years old, the vedic knowledge infact in its essence is immortal(beyond the manifested)
So its basically passed down through the beginning of the universe originating from Krishna from our perception of time.
Two hundred year old human theories. I don’t believe in Rahu, or the Black Sun, or in false gods. I also don’t believe that the Sun and Moon realizes anything, more less realizing some mythical man drinking something.
It is a reasonable question to ask why the moon looks black when there has to be Earth light shining on it but it is a false dichotomy you are presenting. I would not expect to see anything but a black moon when looking at a solar eclipse. Not because the Earthlight is not there but because my eyes would not be able to see it. I have a small child who is afraid of the dark. When I turn off the bright lights of her bedroom at nighttime, she protests that it is too dark and she can not see anything but black. I tell her that there is plenty of light coming in to her room from under the door and from the outside streetlights shining through the crack in her curtains. She sees only black because she has not given her eyes time to dilate and adjust to the lower level of light. After a few minutes she can see the details of her room. The short time of a total eclipse is not long enough for your eyes to adjust from the previous brightness.
Hare Krishna Thomas
Yes. Because our observations are not in agreement with scientific ‘facts’ we have to ignore our observations when they contradict the scientific ‘facts’…
The reality is the moon should be being blasted with quite intense light. It is not a small amount of light that is being reflected off the earth. Earth is reflecting 70% of the sunlight back directly on the face of the moon we are observing. This is significant illumination. Nothing like a full moon of course, but we are talking of illumination like 50 full moons in the sky above the earth at the same time. Just one full moon is very bright, what to speak of fifty of them at the the same time.
So there is no way around it. If the theory the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun then the moon must be significantly illuminated by the earthshine. It can not be dark.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
I am not disputing that the moon has significant Earthlight shining on it. I am just saying you should not expect be able to see it in the light conditions of an eclipse. My daughter’s room has plenty of light in it. Enough light that I would be able to read with the lights off once my eyes had adjusted to the darkness. The human eye can not instantly dilate and adjust to drastic changes to light conditions. I would expect the room to LOOK black even though I know it has plenty of light shining on it. There is no reason to expect to see anything other than a black moon during an eclipse. Please explain why you thing a human eye could dilate enough during an eclipse to allow the details of the moon to be visible with the naked eye.
Hare Krishna Thomas
With all due respect this is nonsense. At the time of the eclipse the moon has to be much, much, much brighter than the stars, and the stars are clearly visible to your eyes at the time of the eclipse. The corona is around the moon, you can see the stars beside the corona and inside the corona there is absolutely no light whatsoever from the corona there. Outside the corona there is light spreading around everywhere, so if what you were saying was true the stars would be washed out but they are not. They are clearly visible, so it is rubbish to say that your eyes can not see the moon which has to be much much brighter than the stars…
Search Google Images for “sunset silhouette” This is exactly what you should expect to see when a well lit object is viewed with the sun behind it.
The biggest problem with your explanation of the eclipse is your assertion that the moon is larger than the sun. The size and relative distances of the Earth, sun and moon are NOT scientific theories. Heliocentrism is a theory. The size of the moon, Earth and Sun are verifiable mathematical calculations derived from direct measurements. You can solve for all sides and angles of a right triangle from knowing one side. This is not even modern science but the accuracy of the measurements have increased with modern measurement tools. Eratosthenes made a good first measurement of the size of the Earth in 240 B.C. By using the distance between two cities on the Summer Solstice. Aristarchus determined the size and distances of both the Sun and Moon using math and direct measurements over 2300 years ago. The math is rock solid. The only thing to question is the accuracy of the initial measurements and these have been confirmed and refined numerous times.
Good points of course however you can not directly measure the distance of the sun and the moon. Your mathematical calculations have assumptions which could be incorrect. It is true that you can calculate the other sides of a right angle triangle with the length of one of the sides. But when you have a side that is at most a few thousand miles long and you are trying to measure a distance of 93,000,000 miles or so you can not measure it accurately enough to get an accurate result. So I agree with your points but with the condition that all such calculations depend on assumptions which, if incorrect, would invalidate the calculations.
I would believe this, if I didn’t see the dark spots of the moon towards the end of the eclipse. If it wasn’t the moon the edges and dark spots looked just like the moon.
While being completely black, is Rahu also somehow of zero mass? Because otherwise there would be a whole bunch of gravitational fluctuations caused by *a massive planet* close enough to blot out the sun.
Hare Krishna Fiona
Rahu is where we think the moon is, more or less, so we would get confused and assume the gravitational flucations caused by Rahu were the moon.
The thing is scientists understand a lot less then they make out. It is all theory. They come up with some theory and test it in a limited way and it seems to work from their limited data and then they get some more data that doesn’t fit. Mostly they keep the theory and reject the data that doesn’t fit their theory. It is cheating. They get attached to their theory and so just reject any data that does not fit within the bounds of their theory.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
We have coronagraph images that show that the moon is indeed in front of the sun
Hare Krishna Manuel
The thing about scientists is they convince themselves they know the truth and then they see the things that support their truth, even if they are not there, and they ignore the things that contradict their truth.
The point of this article is at the time of a solar eclipse the moon is experiencing a very, very bright ‘full earth’. The surface of the moon is being bombarded with light comparable to us having 50 full moons in the sky on earth. That is very bright. So according to the theory that solar eclipses are caused by the moon the moon’s surface at the time of the eclipse must be very significantly illuminated by the earthshine.
So the point is if the eclipse of the sun is dark it is not the moon. That point you need to consider. That point disproves the theory that solar eclipses are caused by the moon.
As far as the coronagraphs, yes, scientists look for bumps on the edge of the moon at the time of solar eclipses. But whether they could actually detect such tiny bumps that would be caused by craters only a few hundred meters at the most, on the moon which is about 2150 miles. So how can they detect tiny bumps that are only a few hundred meters at the maximum on a 2150 mile moon? And even if they can presumably Rahu also has craters, so if it is Rahu they will detect Rahu’s craters and they will mistakenly think they are the moon’s craters.
Scientists see what they know is there according to their theory which they believe is a fact. That is the problem.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Madhudvisa dasa, I have been reading your claim that Earthshine is 50 Times brighter than the full moon, and pretty much agree with your statement,but there are a couple of variables that you have overlooked, or ignored, that in my opinion, taints your overall conclusion that you should be able to see the surface of the moon. First, since neither the Earth or the Moon emits it’s own light, but in fact reflects Sun light there is the variable called “albedo”. The albedo for Earth is about 30%, which means 30% of the sun light that hits the Earth is refected back into space and the other 70% is absorbed. The Moon’s albedo is much lower at 10%-12% that is because there is no atmosphere, oceans or clouds and snow. So this means that only 10% of the light that hits the Moon is refected back into space and the rest around 90% is absorbed. Now, with that being said even thought the Earthshine is more like 40 Times brighter than the full moon only about 10% of the Earthshine illuminates the surface of the moon, therefore the moon would not seam as bright. The other variable that you overlooked is the notion that since you could not see the surface of the moon lit by Earthshine with the naked eye your conclusion is that the moon couldn’t be the cause of the eclipse because it isn’t visible is false. First of all, even though there is Earthshine illuminating the surface of the moon, it isn’t as bright as you estimated because of the low albedo. Now add that with the brightness of the Corona and the bright sunlight still coming though until eclipse totality and that is enough to overwhelm our eyes because our eyes are not sensitive enough to overcome the glare. But you could see the moon’s surface features if you were photographing the eclipse, or looking at the moon with binoculars or telescope. I do have an open mind and respect your opinion but your arguments were not completely valid. Thank you and have a wonderful day
Hare Krishna Thomas
You are raising good points. I am aware of what the scientists call the albedo of a planet. That is the percentage of the suns light it reflects. So if it reflected all the light that would be a 100% albedo and if it reflects no light that is 0% albedo. Earth of course reflects differently depending on land, water, clouds, clear sky, etc. But water is at least 80%. I see now some posts appearing claiming earth’s albedo is averaging 37%, but this is new. Previously they were saying it was 60-70%. So this is science. Every day they are giving us different numbers… Now they say the albedo of the ocean is at least 80% and the earth is mostly covered with water but average albedo is now 37%? Or 31%???
So anyhow who cares about the scientists constantly changing numbers. Now you do a google search and it is as if they have always been saying earth’s albedo is 31%… Still they say ocean’s albedo is 80%, they will have to change that as well…
Anyhow they are now saying earth is .31 and moon is .07. So they have still got the earth about 4.5 times brighter than the moon and it is something like ten times bigger than the moon so that means the earth is like 40 – 50 times brighter when seen from the moon than the moon is when seen from the earth.
So yes. I am aware that the moon will not reflect as much as the earth, but the point is at the time of the solar eclipse it is a ‘full earth’ on the moon and the earthshine is fifty times brighter then the moonshine we experience on earth on a full moon. And it is very bright on the earth on a full moon. So with fifty times as much light on the moon it is going to be very very bright up there at the time of a total solar eclipse and the MOON IS GOING TO BE ILLUMINATED…
That is my point.
At the time of a total eclipse the sun is totally covered. During totality there is no bright light from the sun. During totality only the corona is visible and that is not bright. At that time the whole corona which is spread out widely around the sun, not that it is just only next to the sun, is about equivalent to the light coming from a full moon. That is NOT BRIGHT, it is not localized but spread out over the sky around the sun. So during this period, if the theory is true, we should be able to see the details of the moon due to the earthshine. Sure it will not be bright like a full moon, but it will be illuminated.
Yes. I get your point, but it is not valid because there is no intense light in the corona. Whole thing is not more than the light coming from a full moon and whole sky is dark and the stars come out like in the night time. So at this time the moon can not be dark, it has to be illuminated so we can differentiate at least the craters, etc.
So this is the test to see if it is the moon coming in front of the sun causing the eclipse or if it is Rahu coming in front of the moon causing the eclipse.
There is no doubt about this. When they think about it the astronomers have to admit that at the time of the solar eclipse the moon must be, by far the brightest object in the sky because of the earthshine reflecting off it. There is no getting around this. It has to be visible. If it is the moon coming in front of the sun.
Earth is very bright. That is my point. Think of fifty full moons in the sky and think how bright that would be. Even if you adjust for the albedo of the earth moon that is only a factor of about 4. So it is, adjusted for the albedo of the moon, at least 12 full moons. So imagine looking back from the moon at the earth if the earth had 12 full moons in the sky. It would be almost like daylight. You know full moon is very bright. Last full moon I was on a ship on the ocean and the sky was clear, I saw the lunar eclipse, the full moon was so bright. The ocean, everything was so brightly illuminated. Just imagine that times 12. That is what you have on the moon at the time of the eclipse adjusted for the albedo of the moon.
It can not be dark, it has to be illumiated so we can see the moon with our eyes. No telescopes or Photoshop tricks are required to see this, if it is true that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun.
Now, if you can actually photograph the moon during a solar eclipse then that would prove it is the moon. I know there are such photos available on the web if you search for them. But the problem is it is so easy these days to superimpose the moon over the eclipse photo in photoshop… So there is no way of verifying if these photos are real or not. That is a great problem of the modern age. Technology makes it so difficult to fake things. But the strange thing is these eclipse photos showing the moon have only appeared over the past 10 years, since I have been speaking about the earthshine. Prior to that all the photos of solar eclipse are dark.
But anyhow, if it is true, that you can photograph the moon in front of the sun at the time of the solar eclipse, then that proves it is the moon. But if you can’t then it must be Rahu. So really this is the point of this article. This is the way to prove if the moon is causing the solar eclipse. If it is the moon has to be illuminated. We have to be able to see it. Because it is experiencing a full earth day and is flooded with light similar to having 12 full moons in the sky on earth [adjusted down from 50 due to the difference in albedo of the earth and the moon]
So it can not be dark, that is the point. IF it is dark then there is something wrong with the currently accepted theory that solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun.
Of course I am open to the possibility they are, but if the sun goes totally dark at that time then this theory can not be true. That is the point I am revealing in this article.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Madhudvisa dasa, first off, I must say It has been a pleasure having an rational and a respectful exchange of ideas with you. Your response to albedo made sense and your response regarding the Earthshine illuminating the moon has piqued my interest into wanting to do some research on the ancient science I didn’t even knew existed. Thank you for enlighting me. Have a great day sir!
Hi, this website shows why this happens:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aaRpftDkPKgJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/16/why-you-cant-see-the-moon-during-a-total-solar-eclipse/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Hare Krishna Manuel
Yes. It is a nicely presented argument.
But it comes from the scientific point of view of trying to explain an observation that contradicts one of their theories. Scientists are expert at doing this. They will never consider the possibility of their theory being wrong. They will spend hours and days and weeks and months trying to explain away observations that contradict their precious theory that they believe is fact…
In reality he is wrong and the earthshine should be visible on the surface of the moon even inspite of the corona.
He has given a photo of the earthshine on the moon at a new moon which is very nice. But at the new moon time the moon is not experiencing a ‘full earth’. At that time the sun is not directly aimed at the earth and the reflection from the earth at the time of the new moon is nothing at all compared to the reflection from the earth at the time of a solar eclipse. It is like comparing the light on the earth from a new moon with the light on the earth from a full moon.
At the time of the solar eclipse the moon is experiencing the light of the ‘full earth’. That is about fifty times the illumination the earth is experiencing on a full moon. At the time of the new moon the earthshine on the moon is nothing at all compared to this.
So what the author of the website you have given the link to is telling us is, yes, we are correct, everything I have said is correct, and actually the surface of the moon is quite brightly illuminated by the earthshine. But we can’t see it…
But we could see it… If it was the moon that was coming in front of the sun causing the solar eclipses…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
“Scientists are expert at doing this. They will never consider the possibility of their theory being wrong.”
Do you consider the possibility you are wrong?
Hare Krishna David
I do not have any opinion on this, I have an open mind. I am trying to understand the Vedic version and I am attempting to test the scientists theory. So I am just trying to find out what is the actual situation, unlike the scientists who are like blind religionists who have their doctrine and are not prepared to consider any possibilities outside their doctrine.
So I do not know. I am just trying to understand it and I do not mind questioning the scientists theories.
You do have an opinion on it. Because you are saying that the scientists are liars and that they rig their results.
Your reply to the comment about using lasers to measure the distance to the moon proves this.
Science is a process that seeks to continually refine its body of knowledge through a process of observation, experimentation and repetition.
On the other hand you claim to know all the answers in advance and filter science through that worldview. If science agrees with your preconceptions then it’s true. If it does then it’s false.
What an incredibly dishonest way for you to live your life.
Hare Krishna David
I have no opinion. I accept the Vedic descriptions as the truth, and they are factual. But at this point in time I am not able to properly understand the Vedic descriptions of the structure of the universe properly. That is my fault, not the fault of the Vedas.
If you have read the article my question in regards to the solar eclipse is not based on the Vedic ideas, it is based on the theory of the Western scientists that solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun. I have clearly established that if this is the case then at that time the moon would be being fully illuminated by light at the intensity of approximately fifty times what we experience on earth at the time of a solar eclipse. And honest scientists who have considered this [like in the Forbes article if you saw that] have agreed with me that this is correct, according to science.
So as I have established, if this theory, that solar eclipses are caused by the moon, then the moon has to be visible at the totality. So the moon was not visible, so it appears that the scientists have made a mistake in this regard.
Now we come to the ridiculous position that many are posting photos of the moon visible during the eclipse, that is how it should look of course, but we all know it was actually totally black…
You say science is continually refining its body of knowledge through observation and experimentation. But this is not at all true. Science is a religion and as soon as the high priests determine the doctrine all the ‘scientists’ have to preach that doctrine or be expelled from the cult.
Your own personal example proves this. Your high priest has declared solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun. That does not match our actual observations. If this was true the moon would be illuminated in front of the sun and we could see it. But we can’t…
So as you have seen, when the doctrine handed down by the high priests of science is contradicted by the observations all the dedicated followers of science ignore the actual observations and blindly follow the doctrine of science.
You will not even consider the possibility that solar eclipses are caused by something other than the moon coming in front of the sun. Because you have absolute faith in the high priests of science. You will not consider the real possibility they may be wrong.
And it is a fact that scientists lie to ‘prove’ their mistaken theories.
It is human nature. Scientists get attached to their theories and they accept the observations that support their theories and ignore the observations that contradict their theories. And these days of course most scientists are purchased by big business so they only report the experiments that support their benefactors…
So every human being has four faults. We all make mistakes, we are all illusioned [we accept things to be true that are actually false], we cheat to establish the things we believe, and we have imperfect senses [we may try to observe but because of our imperfect senses we can not actually perceive the totality of what is happening].
So because of these four faults the process of science, observation and experiment, is flawed, and therefore can not give us any factual knowledge.
The only way to get actual knowledge is to find someone who knows and hear it from him. This is actually the process science uses also. You did not attain your ‘scientific’ knowledge through observation and experimentation. No. You heard it from the high-priests of science. You heard it from them that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun.
So if you do not accept these points, that the process of observation and experimentation is faulty and therefore the conclusions of science are by nature faulty, and that theories of science, like solar eclipses are caused by the moon, may be incorrect, then you are incredibly dishonest.
And honest scientist would be prepared to consider that his theory may be wrong. An intelligent scientist would be prepared to consider that solar eclipses may be caused by something other than the moon coming in front of the sun.
Of course it is a nice theory that appears to have a good chance of being correct, the moon coming in front of the sun. But sometimes the actual facts are different. So we have to be prepared to consider the possibility.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Of course if it is actually true then that is fine. But the problem I face is you can not believe anything these scientists, NASA, etc, say. Because they are so attached to their theories, which they truly believe to be facts, that if there is some contrary evidence, they will lie and use photoshop, to protect their beloved theories… It is a great problem. Very lamentable. We can not trust the scientists. We don’t know if these are real photos or if they are photoshop composites… That is the problem.
Science is the greatest fanatical religion. They have their high priests, and they have their doctrine, which they believe to be the absolute truth, and if you dare question their doctrine you are a heathen, you are to be defeated at all costs. They will never consider that perhaps, in some cases, the doctrine of science is wrong…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Just finished watching the eclipse this morning in Washington State, about an 80% eclipse from my vantage.
After observing for a couple of hours not one sighting of the moon. Though I did see a black disc cover the sun.
wonderful article! you are correct in all respects! i think it is not worth arguing with dull headed materialists though as you will just end up repeating yourself ad infinitum and they will still not understand. they actually want to believe these nonsense ideas and no amount of sane logic will sway them! anyway, your article is many times more brilliant than moonshine and earthshine combined!
You are a truly patient individual!!! To so kindly and tactfully address all of these questions, and to deal with the redundancy! I am grateful for this presentation and for the Q&A thread below. I shared it with my friends, and two questions came up that you might help with specifically:
1: “What about the various phases of the moon and crescent moons, wouldn’t we never have those if there were significant earthshine? Where is Rahu during all these regular predictable dark shadow events? Hiding behind the sun and as the earth rotates around the Sun Rahu rotates as well so its always behind the sun?
Except during Eclipses, of course.”
2: “Light travels in straight lines so using basic geometry you can explain why the moon is dark”
Peace and blessings to you!
Hare Krishna Fusionboy
Actually in this post I am just going along with the scientists theory of the structure of the universe. It is really nothing like what they think. So actually there is not so much earthshine on the moon. Really the moon is a lot further away than what the scientists think. So the actual earthshine that can be observed is way, way, way less than it would actually be if the moon were only a quarter of a million miles away. It is actually much further away and the earthshine is therefore much less than it would be according to the theories of the scientists.
It is another point that disproves the current model. That there is not enough earthshine.
But there is of course another point. As we have ‘phases of the moon’, from the moon they also have ‘phases of the earth’. So the earthshine on the moon will be at its maximum level at the time of a ‘full earth’ which is at the time of a no moon. That is when the solar eclipses occur.
At the time of a new moon, which is when they are able to observe some earthshine on the moon, that is just after the no moon, so the earth is still fairly full from the moon, but as the moon becomes fuller the earth becomes less full from the moon. So as the moon becomes fuller the moonlight gets stronger and the earthshine reduces. At the time of the full moon the earth is dark from the moon. Because at that time the sun is on the other side of the earth…
As far as your second point I do not understand what you are asking? That is my point, the moon should not be dark at the time of the solar eclipse. It should, according to the theory of the scientists, be quite brightly illuminated, at least we should be able to see the details of the face of the moon…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Earth cannot reflect back a direct path of light to the moon because of the direct path that is shadowing the earth directly? Am I being disrespectful? I don’t mean to!
Hare Krishna Teddy
This is the problem. People do not seem to be able to think. They just blindly believe the scientists.
There is only a small spot of darkness on the earth. About 150 miles across, the earth is about 10,000 miles across, so this is directly facing the sun with the moon in the middle. The moon is only taking out a circle of about 150 miles, the rest of the 10,000 miles is being fully blasted by the suns rays and reflecting at least 70% of it. The earth is like a huge 10,000 miles across mirror focused directly at the face of the moon during the time of the solar eclipse.
So if this theory, that the eclipse are caused by the moon coming between the earth and the sun, is true, then at the time of the solar eclipse the face of the moon MUST be illuminated by the earthshine.
If it is not, if it is dark then this theory needs to be discarded as it is false. And we have to look for another explanation for the cause of solar eclipses.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Just as you say, the face of the moon was illuminated by earthshine during the solar eclipse:
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2017-8-22_12-8-34-png.28426/
Isn’t it beautiful? 🙂
Hare Krishna Max
This is EXACTLY what it should look like.
But it doesn’t actually. This is done by a cheater with photoshop…
These days you can produce a photo of anything and this photo is produced by superimposing a photo of the moon on the top of an eclipse.
This type of photo is only possible now because of photoshop and cheaters who know this is how it must look. But it doesn’t. So they cheat and pretend the eclipse looks like this. But as we all know, the eclipse, actually, is completely dark…
For 100 years people have been taking photos of the eclipse with film and no one has ever been able to show the face of the moon, now, with the aid of photoshop and superimposing photos on the moon over the eclipse, it has become possible.
The problem is NASA and scientists cheat and lie so much that it is impossible to trust what they say. If someone can actually prove this is the case then we can accept it. But just presenting a photo, which is obviously a photoshop composite creation, does not prove anything at all.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
This IS how it looks when you have a camera that is able to actually filter the light properly, you don’t have to photoshop anything. Our eyes cannot do this, they are not sensitive enough. There are two reasons our eyes cannot see this. The first is because our eyes need time to adjust after being in daylight. The difference between a moon illuminated by the sun and the moon illuminated by the Earth is enormous. The second is that even during the eclipse the small amounts of sunlight reaching us around the moon is actually quite large, larger than the amount of reflected sunlight casting off first the Earth then the Moon. Because of this, the disk looks black.
I wonder, if you were able to use one of these cameras yourself (i.e. see it in real time, to see that there is no photoshopping going on), would you then be ready to change your point of view? Would anything? If the answer to this is “no”, then it is no point in even discussing…
Hare Krishna Jorn
You have been fooled. This is done in photoshop by superimposing a photo of the full moon on top of the eclipse.
We had 100 years of photographers taking photos of the eclipse with film at all different exposures, etc, and they could never capture anything except black.
We can not see anything except black.
It has been pointed out in the Forbes article that yes, the moon must be illuminated at the time of the eclipse. And the author of that article states at the time of the eclipse the moon is the brightest object in the sky by far, except for the corona. He says corona is about equal to the light of the full moon.
So according to him the moon is fully illuminated, much brighter than any of the stars in the sky, which we can very clearly and easily see at the time of the eclipse, even while we are looking at the eclipse and seeing the corona.
So at that time, even according to science, the moon in front of the sun is much much brighter than any of the stars that we can very clearly see. Even with the corona in the sky.
Of course if there was a proper experiment that was actually done honestly and could be verified we would accept that. But you know these people who post photos on the web do it so people gasp at their wonderful photos. They have no intention of reflecting reality. All these astronomical photos are compositions of many photos with a huge amount of processing in photoshop. And people like to buy them and put them on their walls… But you can not use such a photo as proof.
If you are going to base your whole case on a photo some unknown person has posted on the web that you know quite well is not a genuine photo at all but has been massively manipulated in photoshop, then you are a fool.
There is no reason why your eyes can not see the details of the moon when the moon is much much brighter than the stars at the time of the eclipse and you can very clearly see the stars with no problem at all during the totality of the eclipse.
So you have to admit that perhaps the theory that the eclipse is caused by the moon coming in front of the sun is wrong. You have not seen any proof that this is the case. You just want to believe it because that is what you have been taught since you were a child. But you may have been taught incorrectly.
In my case if it can be actually demonstrated properly that the moon is actually there in front of the sun then I would accept it. But that is not at all what we see. As I have clearly explained very scientifically, the moon must be visible at the time of a solar eclipse if the theory that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon is true. If the moon is not visible then they are not caused by the moon. So the moon was not visible so they are not caused by the moon.
You have not given any reasonable explanation as to how the moon can be dark, in fact the moon can not be dark, that is not possible, so the current theory is false.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Obviously I cannot reply to your comment, so I’ll reply to my original comment.
For your information, I am an aerospace engineer by trade, with astronomy as a hobby. This means that I am very well versed in the science, and have also viewed several total solar eclipses in person, with various equipment at hand. I have also performed the calculations showing the orbits of the Moon, Earth and Sun in order to verify the predictions of the times of the solar eclipses. They add up. A ficticious additional planet nobody has ever seen (and that can, mysteriously, only be noticed in any way during a solar eclipse…??) does not. Why do you think this is??
The fact that you let your religious beliefs interfere with your logic (as you are obviously capable of logical thought, but you have an errouneous starting point) does not make actual observations any less valid. The fact remains that the lumination of the Sun’s corona is in the order of magnitude 10.000 times brighter than the lumination of the new moon. This in itself is a more than valid reason for us not being able to see the new moon, just like our eyes can’t see any stars close to a full moon (but if you view them with a telescope without having the moon in view, you can…), but since you are obviously immune to scientific explanation, that won’t do any good either…
I must ask you two things:
1. What would it take for you to leave your current standpoint? Would any argument do this? This is the whole idea behind science. Should you be able to prove science wrong, science will be updated. Since you argue from a religious standpoint, I have the feeling it’s going to be a bit harder…
2. Why would such an enormous amount of well educated people try to mislead others for something like a solar eclipse? Nobody has anything to gain by misleading others into faking that the moon is the source of the eclipse.
Hare Krishna Jorn
I do not think any scientists are trying to mislead people. But in some cases scientists themselves are mislead and believe things that are not actually facts so they unintentionally mislead others.
I am not arguing from a religious point of view. I am trying to understand the description of the universe given in Srimad-Bhagavatam and I am just testing some points. But if something is actually proven beyond a doubt I will accept it. Someone has suggested I take photos of the next total solar eclipse and put them into a stacking program and see the moon for myself coming in front of the sun. So I will do this and post the results here as Steve suggested.
The ‘scientific’ author of the Forbes article admitted that the moon at the time of the solar eclipse is the brightest object in the sky, far, far brighter than any of the stars, etc. And the corona is about the same as the light from a full moon.
So you confirm you can see the stars beside the corona through a telescope if you take the corona out of the field of view. So you should be able to see the moon by pointing your telescope at the moon and taking the corona out of view.
Anyhow people say you can photograph the moon by taking multiple exposures and stacking them.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/earthshine-during-the-2008-total-solar-eclipse/
So if this is true, and perhaps it is, then you can photograph the moon coming in front of the sun at the time of a solar eclipse. So that would convince me.
But the next one is 19 July 2019, but only the end of that is visible in South America. Middle, maximum is in the middle of the ocean. Anyhow that is the next one.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hare Kṛṣṇa!
I think you saying people can’t think is insulting and arrogant on your part. Certainly not the attitude of a devotee of the lord. There are other people that also are good thinkers and I for one don’t agree with your analysis. You should get a decent camera like a P900 (not excellent but good for the money) and then take a series of pictures on the next total eclipse and then put then in a program such as CCDStack: http://www.ccdware.com/products/ccdstack/
Then you should post your result here. We will not accuse you of photoshopping or cheating 🙂
Hare Krishna Steve
It is a very good suggestion and I will do it. Someone else posted a picture from China taken in the 2008 eclipse like this so if it is true then the moon is coming in front of the sun. So I will do this on the next solar eclipse and as you suggest post the results here.
Here’s one from the 2017 eclipse
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/2017-eclipse-with-earthshine/
Hi John
I know, any thoughtful person knows that if the theory of the scientists is true the eclipse must look like these pictures. But producing these pictures in photoshop does not prove that the eclipse looks like this.
There are also many reports of people trying to get these pictures with all the right equipment and failing…
So I think you know that these days producing an image does not mean that the image is actually a true representation of the thing it is purporting to represent.
That is the problem we face.
Before I started talking about this 10 years ago there were no images, over a hundred years of photographing eclipses, and no images like this. Always totally dark. It is only since I started pointing out that it can not be dark, there must be moonshine, about 10 years ago, then and only then these images started to appear….
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hi Madhudvisa dasa,
I don’t know much about astronomy so I won’t try to argue with you about the cause of eclipses. But I am curious why you accept the Vedic scriptures as the absolute truth? …
Hare Krishna Vikram
I can not answer your questions on the authority of the Vedic scriptures in detail on this post. It is not relevant to this post. This post is not based on the Vedic scriptures. It is based on modern science.
According to the theory that the moon causes solar eclipses by coming in front of the sun and according to the understanding of modern science the earth is 4 times larger than the moon [which is much more than four times the surface area to reflect light], it reflects more than 70% of the light that hits it. At the time of the solar eclipse the earth-moon-sun are lined up. The moon is experiencing a ‘full earth’, so the maximum possible earthshine is illuminating the face of the moon. So at the time of the solar eclipse, according to the theory of the modern scientists, the face of the moon must be illuminated by the earthshine during the total solar eclipse. If it is not, if it is dark, then the theory that solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun is wrong.
So I am just suggesting that people take advantage of the coming total solar eclipse in the USA to test the theory of the modern scientists. If the sun goes dark then their theory is false. If you can clearly see the moon illuminated by the earthshine then their theory is still in agreement with the observations.
So if it is dark, then this theory that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun has to be discarded and we need to look for a new theory.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
So…in regards to the August 21st eclipse, does that mean all the scientists in the world are wrong about the moon, when it is NOT the moon that is coming between the earth and the sun??? How could they be ALL WRONG???
Hare Krishna Damien
All the scientists in the world are wrong about so many things. The problem is the ‘scientific process’ is faulty. Their senses are imperfect. They simply do not have the information they need to be able to understand what is going on around them and how things are actually working.
All scientists can do is look up in the sky and see what is happening there, but they have no idea how the things are actually working. What they do is they make a theory and test the theory with what they observe and if the theory predicts what they observe they accept that theory and gradually they forget it is just a theory and start stating it as a fact.
That solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun is a theory. Scientists do not know this for a fact. They just presume this is what is happening. And in this case their theory does seem to be be a good possible explanation of what is happening.
But they have no actual information. All they can see is something dark coming in front of the sun, they presume it is the moon. But it can not be the moon if it is dark as we have explained exhaustively here. If it is the moon it will be like in a spotlight of reflection from the earth, so it will be illuminated and all the features of the moon will be clearly visible at the time of the eclipse.
So you can test it yourself on the 21st. Observe the eclipse, if during totality all the features of the moon are clearly visible then this is compatible with the theory that the moon is coming in front of the sun, however if the sun just goes dark then it can not be the moon coming in front of the sun. So observe yourself, if the moon is dark during the eclipse then you have proved that all the scientists in the world are totally wrong about the cause of solar eclipses.
This is the scientific process, test the theory and if it fails reject the theory and find a new theory.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
They’re the priesthood of scientist
What happens with Rahu before and after the eclipse? I mean, provided it’s completely black, we should see a black disk in the sky approaching the sun, and then going away from it.
Hare Krishna Mariano
It is a very good question.
Rahu hides in the shadow of the moon. So there is a dark disk in the sky approaching the sun, we presume it is the moon, but actually rahu is hiding in the shadow of the moon.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Corona
Corona is not on the face of the moon, it is around the edges of the moon. Face of the moon will still be very clearly illuminated by the earthshine, if it is true that the eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun.
Moonshine is one millionth of sunshine. Water absorbs a lot of light. So do plants.
The earth reflects more than 70% of the sunlight that falls on it. Think of 50 brilliant full moons in the sky. That is what it is like on the moon at the time of the solar eclipse. 50 times brighter than a full moon. That will certainly clearly illuminate the surface of the moon during a solar eclipse. The moon will not be dark, if the scientists are correct.
hi in all modesty try watch my work on these Dark wandering Stars
Hare Krishna Klaus
Thanks. I watched some of it. We know that Rahu does try to hide, often in the shadow of the moon. But there may be times when Rahu is not able to hide and does cover some of the stars, etc. But certainly mostly it is hidden and we would not be able to detect it.
That is the problem with observations. We can see so little. And our senses are imperfect. The only real way to get knowledge is to hear it from someone who knows. That is how we know things, because they are described in the Vedas.
Otherwise, if we try to get knowledge through our imperfect sense perception and through mental speculation and intellectual endeavors it will all be imperfect and faulty.
I suggest you read Srimad-Bhagavatam and attempt to understand the descriptions of the universe you will find there.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Come on guys Earthshine>Moonshine>Black. Turn on brain. Why do you think the moon is black at new moon?
The comparison is not between Earthshine and Moonshine, but between Earthshine and sunshine, which is a million times stronger.
Sunshine = 1300 watts/m2, moonlight = .00146 watts/m2 Earthlight pretty much the same. How much of that earthlight do you think is going to be reflected off the moon? That’s right, 1.6 x 10-9 watts ie nothing
You can not see the moon at the time of the new moon…
At the time of the dark moon the moon is rising at the time when the sun is rising. So sun and moon are close to each other in the sky. So you can never see the dark moon. That is why the time of a solar eclipse is so special. It is only at the time of the solar eclipse that we get to see the dark moon.
There is earthshine on the new moon. If you search for this on the internet you will find photos. But it is difficult because you can not see it in a dark sky. The only chance for this is during a solar eclipse. Moon is high up in the sky and everything goes totally black, allowing us to see the moon fully illuminted by the earthshine, fifty times greater than the moonshine on earth during the full moon… That is if the scientists are right. However, if the moon is dark during a solar eclipse, the scientists are wrong, solar eclipse is not caused by moon, and we have to look for a different explaination…
Rubbish. Earthshine is 50 times greater than moonshine. Are you crazy? Earth is the same distance from the moon as moon is from the earth… Earth is 4 times the size of the moon and so many times more reflective than the moon. Earth reflects more than 70% of the light that falls on it. Moon is more like 17%, ask the scientists for their numbers and you will see from the moon earth is shining like 50 full moons. So even with one full moon shining on the earth if you look from the moon or space the earth is not dark. Imagine how bright the earth would be with 50 full moons in the sky and you will see how it should be.
But if you consider the earth as a sphere, which I think you do, then the maximum reflective part of the earth globe would the exact part blocked out by the Moon, or Rahu. The light reflecting off the earth outside of the penumbra area is not going to be aimed at the moon because of the curvature of the Earth. The maximum reflective area would be right on the line of totality so the earthshine would be zero there. I think we see the moon black because of this reason and there is not any light coming from the area of totality or even around it to reflect back to the moon.
Hare Krishna Steve
It does not matter what I consider the earth to be. This post is based on what the scientists think. I have added a photo to the post of what they say the solar eclipse looked like from the moon in 2012:
https://krishna.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Screen-Shot-2017-08-19-at-6.10.48-PM-300×295.png
So you can see the dark spot is totally insignificant and would make practically no difference at all in regards to the reflection of the earthshine back to the moon.
It is, of course, a fake photo… But this is NASA… What to expect except fake photos? It is supposed to be taken from the moon, they have got the bright spot from the sun in the center of the earth, which is what we would expect of course. Because the sun and moon and earth are supposed to be lined up… But the eclipse which is supposed to be the shadow of the moon which is supposed to be in front of the sun is way way off center… Which would be impossible in their theory… The eclipse should really be where you suggested it would be, in the bright spot on the globe earth where the sunlight is at its maximum. But it is not. So nothing at all works properly with the bogus theory that the cause of solar eclipses is the moon coming in front of the sun… Bogus theory. We need to discard it and find a new theory.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hare Kṛṣṇa Madhudvisa!
I don’t know where they say the photo was taken but even knowing that it’s fake (which I do) you are right, it could not be taken from the moon. Alignment is way off. Their model breaks down in various tests which I’ve done on my site comparing FE and GE models. Until we know how wide the shadow path is, it leaves us only to guess. If it’s bigger than they state, then the reflection from the earth would be minimized. Maybe enough to not light up the face of the moon. I study the vedic texts quite extensively and do take them as fact but it is difficult to reconcile Rahu and Ketu without ephemeris data available. Do you know if the Vedic astrologers has ephemeris data on those two dark bodies? Rahu mirrors the moon’s position exactly and is just closer to us? This year I plan to create a model exactly according to the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and will post it here when it’s done. To make it complete I will need to include Rahu and Ketu so if you have some detailed information on it, that would help! Here is one I did remodeling the EPIC shot of the moon passing earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwEyQbSTRkE
Here is one I did showing Rahu creating the lunar eclipse. The shadow path for the Sep 2016 lunar eclipse matches exactly the animation on timeanddate site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTB6w6CHhIk&feature=youtu.be
हरे कृष्ण हरे कृष्ण, कृष्ण कृष्ण हरे हरे
हरे राम हरे राम, राम राम हरे हरे
Hare Krishna Steve
This is an official NASA photo of a solar eclipse from space, but it is rubbish, impossible. Most of the stuff NASA and the scientists are giving us is fake and that is a great problem. They should report honestly. But the problem is they claim to be able to do so many things they can not actually do. Like sending men to the moon. They can’t do it… But just to keep face and to avoid admitting to us they lied to us about the NASA Apollo missions, they lie to us and present us with obviously fake images thinking we won’t notice…
So it has come to the point that we can not believe anything NASA or the scientists tell us any more. And now with computers, CGI and photoshop, they can make a realistic photo or video of anything they want to. So we can not believe photos are real anymore…
It really would make things much easier if scientists were honest. But they are not…
As far as Ketu, I do not know if Ketu even exists.
In India everything is there. They have the globe earth model also. And they have many predictive astronomical models that give very accurate predictions of the exact locations of the planets and other heavenly bodies at any point in time, past or present, but the purpose of these models is to predict the positions of the heavenly bodies at certain times for use in astrological calculations. So they do not care about how the actual system of the universe is working, their only aim is to predict the exact positions of the heavenly bodies at certain times.
The only systematic description of the actual structure of the universe and how it works, as far as I am aware, appears in the Fifth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam:
http://prabhupadabooks.com/sb/
There is additional information spread throughout the other Cantos of Srimad-Bhagavatam and also in the other books of the same author, Srila Vyasadeva. That includes Mahabharata, the Upanisads and the Purnas.
Srila Vyasadeva is a disiple of Narada Muni who is a transcendental space man. He has the ability to travel at will anywhere in the material and even spiritual world. And Narada Muni is a disciple of Lord Brahma, who is the superintending engineer who created this material world. So the descriptions in the books of Srila Vyasadeva are from ultimately Lord Brahma who is the creator of the material world we live in. So he knows how it works. So his descriptions are correct.
But they are so vastly different from what we have been taught from birth it is very difficult for us to understand these descriptions.
As far as I can see I don’t think there is anyone at the moment capable of comprehending the Vedic model of the universe in sufficient detail to be able to explain it in a way that could be appreciated by the scientists of this world. But if someone could I am sure many would be very interested in this new novel presentation of the workings of the universe.
Scientists are totally bored. They know there are so many flaws in the theories they have at the moment and many of them would be very excited and interested to find something new that is actually correct…
So if you could understand and describe it correctly that would be a great service. But it truly requires realization and guidance from Krishna. So you need to become a pure devotee of Krishna, otherwise how will you be able to get the realization and inspiration to understand the factual situation.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
The Earth does not reflect 70% Sunlight !?…
… Hare Krishna !?!
Hare Krishna Shannon
This is the accepted figure the scientists give for the reflection of the earth. A lot is reflected by the atmosphere itself and of the light that gets through a lot is reflected off the oceans, etc.
So at the time of the total eclipse the sun is directly bearing down on the earth, earth is like a brilliant shining mirror hanging in the sky, like a brilliant spotlight, aimed directly at the face of the earth during a solar eclipse.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Earth isn’t a sphere, it’s elliptical in shape so light is going to reflect back also due to irregular surface it is indeed going reflect back in all directions
Yes. You are correct of course. The face of the moon should be flooded with light reflected off the earth at the time of the solar eclipse…
How big exactly is this planet Rahu? I mean, I’m just curious what it’s made of if it can cause an eclipse and be closer to Earth without causing tidal changes. Inverse square laws being what they are, and all.
Hare Krishna Wolfechu
Rahu is smallest, then the sun, then the moon is largest. The sizes are given in Srimad-Bhagavatam but I do not have it right now. But Rahu is close to the earth, somewhere about where the scientists think the moon is. We don’t understand how anything is working. So your inverse square rule is just nonsense. Scientists observe things and come up with theories and test them and sometimes they appear to predict the things we observe happening around us in nature. So it is then presumed to be a fact. But then they find some cases where the observations do not match the predictions of their theory. So these theories are all imperfect. We may have some partial understanding of some things but we have no knowledge of how the mechanics of the universe are actually working.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
I was hoping in your replies I would find a comment on this level. As you like to use pictures from space at what point did you deiced that sun was bigger than the moon. My only final question which depending on the answer would sum everything up easily. Does earth orbit the sun or does the sun orbit earth.
Hare Krishna Eric
I am only putting in pictures from space because this article is about the theory of the scientists. It is their pictures from space so I am using them to illustrate their theories.
Actually I do not believe NASA’s photos. They have presented so many obviously fake photos that it is hard to accept anything they present as actual photos taken from space…
I did not ‘decide’ the sun was bigger than the moon. The Vedic texts describe the moon as being bigger than the sun. So I accept that. The Vedic texts clearly state that the earth is in, or close to, the center and the sun, moon and everything else, are moving around the earth. The scientists actually can not say one way or the other. What we can observe is a relative motion. We can see everything in the sky moving around the earth, and the natural thing would be to assume that this is the case. That is what people assumed traditionally. That the earth was stationary and everything else was moving around it. But then some bright spark realized that actually it could be that the earth is a ball rotating in space and everything else is more-or-less stationary. Of course sun, moon and planets have their own independent movements apart from the rotation [either around the earth or caused by the earth rotating]
So both theories, earth centered and sun centered, can explain what we observe equally well. And we have no way of telling what is actually happening from our perspective here on earth.
However it is clearly described in the Vedic texts that the earth is in the center and everything else is rotating around the earth. So that is what we accept as the truth. And scientists and astronomers can not disagree with this. They can also explain everything they observe happening in the sky in this way. They can accept either theory. But we happen to know that the way the universe is working is earth is in the center and things rotate around the earth.
Actually it is not the earth exactly, it is a complex system based on rotating around the polestar. It would take too long to describe all the details here.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Lol… So you are saying that the moon is actually further away and goes *behind* the sun. And supposedly this “dark” planet is in a closer orbit that exactly parallels the Moon’s and it is what covers the sun during a solar eclipse??!
Pardon my french but that is not even f**king remotely physically possible. 😀
If the moon is further than the sun how do you explain *lunar* eclipses… Or the fact that the moon itself is never eclipsed by this “dark planet” no one can see??
Get off the drugs guys. It’s not good for your health…
Hare Krishna Bob
Yes. We are saying that the moon is further away than the sun. So moon can not cause solar eclipses. And you can prove if this is true or not during the next total solar eclipse in USA in a couple of weeks.
If your theory, that solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun, is true then at that time the moon will be experiencing a ‘full earth’, which means it will be about 50 times brighter than the surface of the earth is during a full moon night. So the surface of the moon will be illuminated sufficiently so with your naked eyes during the total eclipse period you will be able to clearly see the details of the surface of the moon in front of the sun. It will be illuminated by very strong reflection from the earth.
However if the sun goes completely dark then we know it is not the moon in front of the sun and we will have to look for another explanation…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Actually, earthshine is about 10 times that of the full moon. This is what science says and that sounds about right to me. If you have proof to the contrary, I would love to see it. The moon moves through the sky and we are able to track it very accurately both astronomically and astrologically. When the moon is in the same sign and degree as the sun we have what we call the New Moon and this comes once a month and when Ketu is allso conjunct with these, we have an eclipse. During these times the moon is basically invisible to us. There are a few days during the crescent moon when the effects of earthshine can be seen and the darkened part of the moon is visible due to this earth shine, but it is very dark as is seen in this picture (http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-is-earthshine). The Light emitted by the Sun’s corona during a total eclipse is equivalent more or less to the light of a full moon. This is much brighter than the illumination from earthshine so the contrast of the bright corona to the dimly lit moon gives the moon the temporary appearance of something akin to a black hole. Earthshine cannot outshine the background light of the Sun’s corona and so the moon is not visible..
“According to Science…”‘
Earth Moon
Mean diameter 12,742 km 3,476 km
surface area of sphere: 4 pi r 2
Earth 4 x 3.141592 x (12,742/2) squared = 510064365 square km / 2 = 255,032,182.5 (facing the moon)
Moon 4 x 3.141592 x (3,476/2) squared = 37958524 square km / 2 = 18,979,262 (facing the moon)
So the earth has 255 million square kilometeres reflecting the suns light to the moon.
And the moon only has 19 million square kilometers of surface area to reflect the suns light to the earth.
So 255 / 19 = 13.5 times. So on the sufrace area only the fullearth viewed from the moon will be 13.5 times brighter than the full moon viewed from the earth.
When the different reflectivies are also considered the final conclusion ‘according to science’ is that the full earth seen from the moon at the time of a solar eclipse is about 44 times brighter than the full moon see from earth. So we can say it is roughly 50 times brighter than the full moon.
So just imagine how bright it would be on a full moon night on earth if you had 50 full moons in the sky!!!
This is the situation on the moon at the time of a solar eclipse!
So there is no way, if the theory of modern science, that solar eclipses are caused by the moon, is true, that you can not easily and very clearly see the full features of the surface of the moon during a total solar eclipse just by looking up at the moon.
So you can test this in about 150 days when you have the total solar eclipse in USA. See if you can see the deatails and features of the surface of the moon illumintated by the earthshine during the total solar eclipse. If you can’t then the theory that solar eclipses are caused by the moon is incorrect.
As far as your last comment is concerned, that the surface of the moon will not be illuminated because of the corona around it, that is insane. Take a beachball and put a light behind it, totally obscured by it, and get a torch and shine it on the front of the beach ball. Do you thing that your torch will illuminate the fount of the ball. If you don’t know try it…
You can’t have a ‘black hole’ as you say if you have got almost 50 full moons in the sky blazing down on it…..
Please check the article again to see the new photo I have added showing the relative sizes and brightnesses of the moon and the earth.
As far as the photo you have linked showing the earthshine on the moon at the time of a crescent moon. That is just proving what I have said, the surface of the moon is quite clearly illuminated by the earthshine. So it should also be illuminated like this during the solar eclipse. If something is illuminated you can not remove that illumination by having a not very bright ring of light around it. It will still be illuminated by the earthshine and you will still be able to see the details of the moon, if the idea of the scientists that solar eclipses are caused by the moon is true…
The moon’s reflection doesn’t light up the night. It’s still dark. If viewing the Earth from the moon during a new moon it would be bright and there would be reflected light from Earth on the moon, but to then see that light again reflected from the moon back again to Earth, you’re expecting it to be illuminated??
Hare Krishna Mike
If the scientists are correct and solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun at that time it is a ‘full earth’ day on the moon. At that time the sun is directly aimed at the face of the earth, the dark spot of the solar eclipse is only a small speck 50 or 100 miles across, the rest of the surface of the earth is brilliantly illuminated by the sun. The earth is much more reflective than the sun. Earth reflects at lest 70% of the light that falls on it. As I have said before at that time the surface of the moon must be illuminated to the degree that the surface of the earth would be if there were about 50 brilliant full moons in the sky. So think of how bright the earth is on a cloud-free full moon night. And think of 50 times brighter than that. That is the situation on the moon at the time of the solar eclipse, if the scientists are correct.
So look at the eclipse which will happen in the US in a couple of weeks. If the features of the moon are visible in front of the sun during totality then the scientists are correct. However if it is dark then the scientists are wrong and we have to find another way to explain the cause of solar eclipses. If it is dark it is not the moon causing the solar eclipse.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
yeah that’s right you KNOW the eclipse will happen in a couple of weeks cos SCIENCE did predict it to the SECOND, you and your jumbo mango delusional ideas did not.
Hare Krishna Jean
You are wrong. The Vedic astronomers have been predicting solar and lunar eclipses accurate to the second since the beginning of time. Western science has only been able to do it within the past 100 years. And they learned how to do it from the Indian astronomers…
In India the eclipses are considered inauspicious. So at the time of the eclipse the people go to a holy place and bathe in a holy river like the Ganges or Yamuna during the eclipse. They have been doing this for thousands and thousands of years. So they can only do this because they can accurately predict to the second when the solar and lunar eclipses will occur.
Indian Vedic science is very advanced and has existed for thousands and thousands of years. Five thousand years ago they knew exactly when the solar and lunar eclipses would occur. One hundred and fifty years ago the Western scientists had no idea how to calculate this…
Greetings to all!
Supposing the Moon to be closer to the Earth than the Sun, I think we cannot see the light reflected first from the Earth and then from the Moon during a solar eclipse because it is outshined by the many times brighter light reflected by our atmosphere and by the sunlight visible around the Moon.
Hare Krishna Slava
You have not at all thought this through properly. Actually the reflected sun light coming back from the earth to the face of the moon during a solar eclipse would be very intense. And the light reflected from the earth’s mirror like oceans and reflective atmosphere is like a floodlight which will completely illuminate the surface of the sun during a total solar eclipse. There are different types of eclipses, one is called an Annular eclipse, that is what you are thinking of, when the light of the sun can be seen around the edges. But on a total solar eclipse the sun is totally covered. There is some corona you can see but that is not very bright at all. The whole sky becomes black like night time and the stars become visible.
Light behind the moon has no effect on the front of the moon that we can see. If you take a ball and shine a strong light on the back then the front of the ball will be dark but if you shine a light, even not so bright, on the front, then you will illuminate the front of the ball.
The point is that it is dark, and if you shine a light on it it will be illuminated…
You have to understand that from the moon at the time of a solar eclipse the earth would appear at least as bright as 100 of our full moons. So you look at the Taj Mahal on a full moon night and just see how bright the moonlight is on earth. Just imagine 100 times that much light shining on the moon.
So there is absolutely no question whatsoever, if what the scientists say is true, then during a full solar eclipse then when the sun is completely eclipsed we will be able to see clearly the features of the moon from the earth. Everyone will see it. You do not need any special equipment. The face of the moon will be flooded with light from the brilliant blazing ‘full earth’…
If you are in the USA you will have a chance to test this later on next year. It is a very rare opportunity, total solar eclipse in the USA on August 21, 2017
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2017-august-21
That is only 120 days from now.
So if you get yourself in the very narrow, 100 mile wide, path of the total solar eclipse on this day you will be able to see for yourself if solar eclipses are caused by the moon or by rahu. If they are caused by the moon you will be able to see very clearly the features of the surface of the moon because it is flooded by the light from the brilliant full-earth, if it is Rahu you will just see black, because Rahu is a black, non-reflective planet.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Here is the correct understanding of Rahu and Ketu known by Vedic Astrologer:
Rahu and Ketu are nodes in Vedic astrology. Nodes are the points at which the orbit of the Moon cuts the plane of ecliptic (path of the Sun). During the course of the motion, the Moon crosses the ecliptic plane in the zodiac**. Rahu and Ketu are the nodes of the Moon. When Moon crosses the ecliptic while going from south to north of the ecliptic, it is called ascending node or Rahu. Latitude of the Moon at Rahu is zero and will increase above the ecliptic. When Moon crosses the ecliptic while going from north to south of the ecliptic, it is called descending node or Ketu. Again, latitude at Ketu will be zero and it will decrease. So Rahu and Ketu are actually not any physical bodies but are the imaginary points on the plane of ecliptic. As the Sun and Moon move in one direction, these points will move in opposite direction. In other words, we can say that these points move in a retrograde motion. So Rahu and Ketu are always opposite to each other i.e, 180 degrees apart.
Astrologers are not astronomers. Astrologers have no knowledge nor any interest in how the universe is working from a mechanical point of view. They don’t care. All they are interested in is knowing what it the exact position of the planets and other heavenly bodies at a certain time. So there are a number of astrological calculation systems that do allow the Vedic astrologers to exactly predict where the planets, etc, will be in the sky [they need to know which sign of the zodiac each planet is in at a particular time]. So there are a number of mathematical models they use for this purpose. But these astrological models just predict the position of the planets in the sky at a particular time. They do not say anything, or even claim to say anything, about the actual mechanics of how the planets are moving, etc. One very famous astrological calculation system like this is the Surya Siddhanta.
So this concept of Rahu and Ketu as mentioned by some unknown astrologer may be accepted by some astrologers and may be handy in their calculations. But they are not talking about actual planets. They are speaking of two imaginary mathematical points in the sky. So Rahu is not an imaginary mathematical point in the sky…
So for the actual mechanics and details of how the universe is working it is pointless to go to an astrologer. They don’t know the mechanics of the universe or how it is working. Astrologers use the universe as we would use a clock. We may not know the detailed engineering behind how the clock works but we can see the hands of the clock and in that way we can understand what the time is. So astrologers see the positions of the planets in the sky and from the science of astrology they can predict what sort of influences this configuration of planets will have on particular individuals by comparing with the configuration of planets in the sky at the time of that person’s birth.
So as we don’t know or even care to know the complicated engineering details of the clock, the astronomers don’t know or care about the details of the mechanical workings of the universe. Like we just use the clock to tell the time, they just use the sky to see where the planets are. That is all they are concerned with. Where the planets are in the sky at any particular time. Like our only use for the clock is to see what the time is.
So if we want to understand the actual structure and workings of the universe astrologers and astrological texts are of no use to us. They are only about how to tell the time on the clock. They have no information about how the clock is actually working.
The best place for getting the actual information of the mechanical workings of the universe is Srimad-Bhagavatam. That is written by Srila Veda Vyasa who is the literary incarnation of Krishna, so he knows the actual situation of the universe and how it works from a mechanical point of view. So from Srimad-Bhagavatam we get the information that Rahu is a planet, not an imaginary point in the sky. We do not see any mention of Ketu at all. And we get the information that Rahu is causing the solar and lunar eclipses. The solar and lunar eclipses are not caused by the moon coming in front of the sun or by the shadow of the earth. The moon can not come in front of the sun because the moon is further away from the sun. It is an illusion. It only appears that the moon is coming in front of the sun, actually the moon goes behind the sun while Rahu comes in front of the sun. So when we see a lunar eclipse we are seeing Rahu come in front of the sun, not the moon come in front of the sun. And I have already proven beyond reasonable amount that it is not the moon coming in front of the sun. Perhaps you have not read it? Considering the scientists information about the relative sizes and reflectability of the sun and the moon, if they were correct, at the time of the solar eclipse the moon would be experiencing a ‘full earth’ and on the moon the earthshine would be tens of times brighter than the moonshine on the earth on a full moon night. That is because the size of the earth in the sky viewed from the moon is much larger and because, according to the scientists, the reflectability of the earth, which is mostly covered by very reflective water and has a very reflective atmosphere, is far greater than the reflectibility of the moon. Remember we have all seen the ‘moon rocks’. They are just like earth rocks, according to NASA…
So imagine the earth on a full moon night and imagine you are on the moon looking at it. By the moonshine you will be able to see all the details of the earth quite clearly. You can see the oceans, the land, the deserts, the forests. Everything will be clear even on the dark side of the earth due to the moonshine…
Now imagine you are on the earth during a solar eclipse. If it is a complete solar eclipse Rahu will come in front of the moon and the sky will go black and it will be like night. You will see the stars in the sky. So at that time the moon is experiencing a ‘full earth’. So the very surface of Rahu will be flooded with light from the earth. But because Rahu is a dark planet it does not reflect any of that light so we don’t see anything… So that is what we observe.
However if it was the moon coming in front of the sun we would clearly see all the features of the moon, the shapes of the craters, etc. Because at that time the surface of the moon is totally flooded by intense [compared to a full-moon on earth] light coming from the ‘full earth’ in the sky.
So this is proof that it is not the moon coming in front of the sun during a lunar eclipse.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Actually, this is not correct. When the earth comes between the Sun and the moon, the Sun is illuminating the other side of our planet. Earth would appear from the moon like a New Moon appears from the earth. Sometimes Masters get it wrong. I am not aware of any Vedic scripture that states the moon ever goes behind the Sun but if there is it has either been misunderstood or is in error. Much of science is still theoretical but not this. Predicting the path and position of the Sun and Moon is pretty simple these days. It is a mistake to dismiss a proven science fact in favor of scriptural teaching. This is what born again Christians do. This turns religion into dogma. The Vedas will always be in agreement with proven scientific facts because the Veda is scientific. So either the scripture has been altered or misunderstood. Your Master was a good man and radiated great divinity through his devotion, but he was not omniscient. You also have to allow for fallibilities in even divine beings when they manifest in a human body.
Hare Krishna Cliff
Actually the two things modern science has got most wrong is the origin of life and the structure and workings of the universe. On both points virtually everything you have been taught is wrong. This knowledge is coming from Krishna and He created the universe so He knows how it works. Krishna is omniscient. So if you want to know how the universe works then you have to hear it from someone who knows, and that would be Krishna.
Anyhow you have misunderstood completely. Your statement: “When the earth comes between the sun and the moon,” is wrong. The earth is stationary. It does not move at all. It never comes between the sun and the moon. What comes between the sun and the moon is a dark planet called Rahu. Rahu comes between the earth and the sun during a solar eclipse and during a lunar eclipse Rahu comes between the sun and the moon and from the earth we see the shadow of Rahu on the moon.
I think what you are trying to say is that at the time of a solar eclipse the earth would be dark? But if you are trying to say that then you have not thought about it at all… You are standing on the earth. It is daytime. The sun is directly above your head and something comes in front of the sun. We do know that the moon is there in the same position in the sky, we don’t know how far away the moon is or how far away the sun is. But in any case if we accept the incorrect theory of modern science the sun is directly behind the moon and the moon is making a very small shadow [something like 100 miles across only], then what you are going to see on the earth from the moon at that time is the full earth blazing in the sky with all that intense light reflected from the sun off our oceans and our atmosphere… and you will see a small black dot in the middle which is the lunar eclipse. So the eclipse will not diminish the earthshine on the sun by any significant amount.
So what I have said is correct. At the time of a solar eclipse the moon would be experiencing a ‘full earth’ and the surface of the moon would be totally flooded by earthshine and we we would be able to clearly see all details during the total part of the eclipse at least.
Thank you Prji for this article.
I wanted to clarify that if the Moon is located farther than the Sun, how do countries claim to have landed on the Moon? Are they hoaxing around?
Hare Krishna Parikshit
Yes. NASA for certain are lying at least about their manned moon landings. That is for sure. Even NASA today openly admits that today with technology thousands of times better than they had in the 60’s, they can not send men to the moon. Today they even have a lot of trouble even launching satellites and sending cargo up to the space station. They still can’t even go a couple of hundred miles up safely and reliably. And they would have us believe that in 1960 they were able to make the half a million mile journey to the moon and back safely many times… It is a certainly a lie, a hoax.
As far as other countries, they seem to have caught on that USA faked their space missions, so they are also faking space missions… For some national pride and prestige.
So the point is the moon is further away than the sun so because they do not know that they have not been to the moon. If they have been anywhere it is to Rahu. But we very seriously doubt that they have been anywhere except in earth orbit.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Sadaputa Das explains that the moon is farther (higher) from the plane of Bhu-mandala than the sun is. It doesn’t mean that the moon is farther away from our planet than the sun. The moon is closer to us than the sun but is situated higher as measured from bhu-mandala.
How do you know? How does Sadaputa know?
Unfortunatly Sadaputa was a scientist in the guise of a devotee. He believed in western science actually and was trying to establish that Srimad-Bhagavatam agrees with modern science. Which it absolutely does not. So almost everything Sadaputa said was rubbish speculation poisoned by his faith in science. He could not give up his faith in science and consider that maybe the Bhagavatam was correct.
This is the problem with ISKCON, they listened to Sadaputa, now whenever some ISKCON devotee speaks of science they have no idea actually, so like you, they just repeat Sadaputa’s nonsense.
The moon is further away than the sun because the moon is bigger than the sun and to us it appears to be the same size as the sun. So the only way this could be the case would be if the moon was further away than the sun.
The only reason Sadaputa said the moon is closer than the sun is because that is the opinion of modern science, and he believed in modern science…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
I live in the United States and was taught all my life that evolution is a fact and the “Big Bang” created everything, which left me convinced for most of my life that there is no creator. This left me egocentric and only focused on material things. It wasn’t until I started researching Flat Earth for several months that i realized everything I have been taught was a lie. I tried to prove the heliocentric model by simply proving i live on a planet and I could not do so. I think you are right, flat earthers don’t understand the mechanics of the universe any better than the heliocentrists but at least i think they know something is seriously wrong with the science they have been taught. Also if I didn’t start researching flat earth many months ago then I never would have found this page. Intuitively I think everything you have said is correct which is why I want to study these great transcripts and begin practicing. Where can I find a master of these teachings?
http://prabhupadabooks.com/sb/
Hi Madhudvisa,
Unfortunately on this account Vedas are wrong please check following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwY2vZ-2zck
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/earthshine-during-the-2008-total-solar-eclipse/
Regards,
Hare Krishna Mark
Vedas are not wrong. Veda means knowledge. So Veda is correct. What may be wrong is my interpretation or misunderstand of the Vedas.
The earthshine on the moon during a solar eclipse should be very bright. It is not some subtle thing that one needs a super-powerful telescope to see.
So that we can not see anything, that we see the moon as dark during a solar eclipse, means there is a problem with the Western model.
Just think about it. How bright the moonshine is on earth on a full-moon night. Even if the earthshine on the moon was just as bright as the moonshine on the earth that would make the features of the moon clearly visible from the earth. As at the time of a solar eclipse the moon is experiencing a ‘full earth’.
But the light coming from a ‘full earth’ on the moon is hundreds of times brighter than the light coming from a full moon on earth.
If you look up the reflectivity of the earth it is getting up near 80% I think while, just from memory, the receptivity of the moon is about 17%. So very roughly the earth is reflecting three times as much sunlight as the moon. But the moon is only about a quarter of the size of the earth. So the earth is going to be reflecting at least 4 x 3 = 12 times as much light as the moon is. And this is a very modest calculation. Actually if you work it out properly it is probably more than 20 times as much reflected light from the earth falling on the moon on a full earth day as there would be light reflected from the moon to the earth on a full moon day.
So the point is that everyone should clearly see the features of the moon illuminated by the earthshine during a solar eclipse. Not just a few astronomers…
So why not watch the next solar eclipse yourself and see if the features of the moon are visible. Personally I checked this on the last solar eclipse we had in Australia and even with a good telescope I could not detect any features on the moon.
You should not need a telescope. The moon should be completely flooded with earthshine during a full eclipse…
But we can’t see any of the features of the moon during a solar eclipse.
Now because we have exposed this fact some astronomers are seeing it, the photos are appearing on the web… But we can’t see it when we look. Only a few astronomers can see it… But you know, you have heard of photoshop? People cheat to prove the theories that are very dear to them…
Of course it may be true. The problem is you or I can very easily superimpose the features of the moon on a photo that we took on the 2008 eclipse… So we are living in the age of photoshop and anyone can produce a convincing looking photo of anything.
Still if you look at the moon during a solar eclipse it is dark, it is not at all illuminated by the earthshine that it should be totally bathed in.
During a total solar eclipse it is like night. The sky is dark, everything is dark, and in that situation the moon should be clearly illuminated by the earthshine which would be around 20 times brighter than the moonshine on earth. And that simply does not happen…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hare Krishna Marko
You can not make up rubbish like this. Earth’s and particularly the oceans are very reflective. Water reflects like a mirror. Earth overall is reflecting around 70% of the light and the oceans are reflecting more than 70% and land is reflecting less than 70%. Exact figures you can look up on the scientific websites. So if you were to look at the earth from the moon on a full earth day you would see the earth blazing in the sky many times larger than we see the moon and many times brighter. So the earth shine on the moon would have to be much, much brighter than the moon shine on the earth. Moon shine on the earth is quite bright enough that one can pick out the details on the earth like the oceans and the land from space with the illumination of the moon. So the moon on the full earth day would be illuminated at least 10 times as bright as the earth on a full moon day.
So it is not that we would have to wait for some astronomer to photoshop a 2008 solar eclipse photo by superimposing the moon on it so we could see it. No. We could all very clearly see the details of the landscape of the moon during a solar eclipse as at that time the whole face of the moon we are looking at is being blasted with extremely bright earth shine… But we can’t. So the “scientific” theory of the cause of the eclipses of the sun is wrong.
And your cloud example is stupid. If there are clouds we can’t see the solar eclipse. So obviously we can’t see it if there are clouds. To view a solar eclipse properly we have to be fortunate enough to have a clear day to view it on.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the photo of earthshine on the moon during the 2008 total solar eclipse is most likely fake. If we were to expose the shot long enough to get the contours on the moon, the brightness of the sun’s corona would be much, much greater.
Hare Krishna Prav
Yes. I think the earthshine photos are fake.
If it was the way scientists say the amount of earthshine on the moon during the solar eclipse would be very high. Imagine a full moon in the sky that is four times bigger than our moon and ten times brighter. so considering the increased size the earthshine on the moon would be about 100 times brighter than the moonshine on the earth. So during the total eclipse of the sun the surface of the moon should be clearly visible because of the brilliant earthshine hitting it form the ‘full earth’. So we should not need some astronomers fake photo to see the earthshine on the moon. We should be all able to see clearly with our own eyes the moon, illuminated by the earthshine, coming in front of the sun during a solar eclipse.
But we can’t. That proves that the modern theory that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun is incorrect. Actually the moon goes behind the sun and Rahu comes between the sun and the earth….
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
can you explain this image, shadow of moon over earth during solar eclipse..
https://cdn.kastatic.org/ka-perseus-images/d4e02fc18bae64da88baba86c3a74701f3b30463.jpg
Yes. Actually that is shadow of Rahu over earth.
Awesome explanation. Pls enlighten me more on this topic and also size of Rahu. I heard moon is twice size of sun and rahu twice size of moon or 4 times size of sun.
Hare Krishna Prabhu
Please read for yourself these details in Srimad-Bhagavatam. Sun is closest Moon is further out, but Rahu must be closer than Sun because Rahu comes in front of the Sun during solar eclipse. So Rahu is smallest, then Sun is bigger and Moon is biggest.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hare Krishna, thanks for this interesting article. I’m an open minded person and would like ask a little detail. How can mainstream science predict moon eclipse accurately by calculating the movements of sun, moon & earth as they say? They even published lunar eclipses from 1951-2050: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html
Any thoughts? Many thanks in advance.
Hare Krishna Satrio
The Indian sages have always been able to predict the solar and lunar eclipses. Even 5,000 years ago they could do this. Modern science has only worked out how to do it in the last 100 years. And they probably worked out how to do it from the Indian sages… Exactly how modern science does it no one knows really… But we know how the Indian sages do it and we have the books and formulas to do it that way. So we understand how the Indian sages predict the solar and lunar eclipses, but we do not understand how modern science does it…
So the point is solar and lunar eclipses can be predicted from the Vedic model of the universe.
The model of the universe presented by Western science is a good predictive model of the universe from many points of view. But just because it is a model that predicts a lot of what we actually observe happening around us does not necessarily mean it is correct.
We have a lot of information that indicates many of the basic assumptions made by scientists in their model of the universe are wrong. And the actual situation of the universe is quite different from what they have assumed.
It is a big discussion…
Hare Krishna to all,
The concept of the Moon being larger than the Sun is something I cannot grasp. Reading all your comments it seems the black shadow that gets casted on the moon is not a planet but just a shadow that we call Rahu.
A theory is tried, tested and observed, such as gravity, which states the tides in the ocean increase and decrease due to the gravitational pull from the Moon. and if the Moon is so far from Earth then why don’t we have such effects from the Sun? I am assuming that the Moon and the Sun are both larger than Earth in your theory/fact?
We see great wonders in the animal kingdom, where animals use creative techniques to catch prey, survive and adapt to the ever changing environment. To then to say we humans do not have the intelligent is undermining the very essence of what we have produced in the whole of human existence. Moving from hunter gathers to framing communities to cities and empires.
Going back to the topic of the Moon – The Moon does not create its own light as observed by many ancient to modern scientist. But in fact reflex’s light of its surface. The debate of if humans ever landed on the Moon I understand there is plenty of conspiracies. But what we do have and is proven large mirror like objects placed on the Moon that scientist shine bright lasers to calculate the distance of the Moon as it has been proven that the Moon is slowly moving away from our planet.
No disrespect to anyone just my own personal believes and thoughts.
hare Krishna
Hare Krishna Punit
Of course you can not understand. Because from birth you are brainwashed by a particular ideas. So now you are old and the brainwashing has worked so you accept those ideas as facts and you can not consider any other ideas that contradict these theories you have been brainwashed with since birth.
So you have to clear out all the rubbish brainwashing from your mind and realize these theories of man are only speculations and no one has any proof of these things. And from the Vedas we can understand most of these ideas about the universe held by the modern world are wrong. But unless you are prepared to kick out the wrong ideas you have been brainwashed with for your whole life you will not have room in your brain for the truth.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hello Punit,
You wrote:
“A theory is tried, tested and observed, such as gravity, which states the tides in the ocean increase and decrease due to the gravitational pull from the Moon. and if the Moon is so far from Earth then why don’t we have such effects from the Sun? ”
Consider this: There is no such thing as Gravity. Shocking, I know! But, there is buoyancy and density. Test it yourself. It works every single time with everything on Earth. Going back to your comment, if the moon can create tidal variations, then the sun, being supposedly much larger and being allegedly gravitationally powerful enough to keep all the supposed planets revolving around it, should affect the oceans too, and to a much much larger degree. Gravity doesn’t explain many anomalies found when you do observations yourself. As Tesla said, scientists have substituted theories in place of experiments. You may ask yourself, why did they do that? What is their agenda? Other topics you may find interesting is the notion of the “vacuum of space”. There are many topics that we need to investigate and your interest in this forum is a good start.
I suggest you take a closer look at the discussion of the gravity phenomenon on YouTube and other sites. Do yourself a favor and keep an open mind when you peruse these discussions. And, try to separate science from scientism. You may be shocked at all the falsehoods, contradictions and manipulation of information coming out from NASA et al. Warning: You may laugh more than you ever have in your life! I guarantee you, a great awakening is awaiting you. The ancients were correct in many of their observations. We haven’t even begun to understand most of the things they were able to achieve. Wake up and understand — it is an exhilarating experience!
There is not much use looking at the flat earth discussions as they have no more idea really than the globe earth people. The problem is we don’t know. Using the information gathered by our extremely limited sense perception there is no way we can know anything conclusive about the universe and how it works and how things are situated within it. We only have a two dimensional view of the sky and most of the things in the sky are dark, don’t reflect light, so we can’t see them. So we have no idea of distance. There is no way of measuring the distance of the objects we see in the sky, there is so much in the sky we can’t see, and there is so much that is just totally out of our view.
Srila Prabhupada uses the example of a frog who has lived his whole life in a two foot wide well. His whole universe is that two foot wide well. That is everything for him. So if some world-traveller frog visits him and tries to explain the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean the frog can only thin in terms of his two-foot well. He can not conceive, he can not imagine the Atlantic Ocean..
The only way we can get actual information about something is to hear it from someone who actual has real knowledge about that subject matter.
So we need to find someone who actually knows the structure of the universe and how it works. Of course the greatest expert is Krishna, then Lord Brahma is the scientist behind the creation and working of the mechanics of this universe. He knows everything about this universe. His student is Srila Narada Muni, one of his disciples is Srila Vyasadeva, therefore, by disciplic succession, Srila Vyasadeva knows everything about the actual situation of the universe. Srila Vyasadeva has described the universe in his books like Srimad-Bhagavatam and Mahabharata. So that is the place where we can get real information about the universe.
Whatever hints about the truth the flat earth people they have picked them up from the writings of Srila Vyasadeva.
So best, if we want to understand it, we need to study Srimad-Bhagavatam.
As far as gravity Srila Prabhupada does not accept that there is any such thing. And you are correct, things fall or raise because of relative density…
Gravity does not work in the water, it does not work in the air either, it is, as you say density.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Why is it during a solar eclipse the sun get blacked out but during a lunar eclipse its red colored?
It is because during a solar eclipse Rahu comes inbetween the earth and the sun. So it is a physical solid object coming in front of the sun. So in that case Rahu completely blocks out the light of the sun during the total eclipse stage except for the corona.
In the case of a lunar eclipse Rahu comes between the sun and the moon. We still have the full view of the moon. Nothing is coming between the earth and the moon. So we can still see the moon but a lot of the light gets blocked by Rahu coming between the sun and the moon. Exactly why it is so red I am not sure about that.
So solar eclipse is a Rahu coming in front of the sun. But lunar eclipse is is the shadow of Rahu on the moon.
The light from the sun is reflected from the Earth’s surface, to the moon, and then back to our eyes. Because of this double reflection of light, Earthshine is many, many times dimmer than the direct light of the sun on the moon (single reflection). Earthshine is even more faint because the moon’s “albedo” (a bodies reflectivity) is less than Earth’s.
So you are wrong when you say that earthshine is brighter than moonshine.
Hare Krishna Naan
You have made a mistake here. Earthshine is some much brighter than moonshine. I think you have not understood what I said.
Yes you are correct the albedo of the moon, according to the scientists, is only around .12 with the albedo of the earth being around .4. So you see the earth is going to reflect four times as much light as the moon. And, again according to science, the diamater of the moon is about 2100 miles and the diameter of the earth is about 8000 miles. So a rough idea of the area which the light is reflecting off is Pi times r squared:
earth: 3.14 * 4000 * 4000 = about 50 million square miles
moon: 3.14 * 1050 * 1050 = about 3.5 million square miles
So the earth is 3.3 times more reflective than the moon and the area which the sun will reflect off on the earth is about 14 times greater than the area the moonshine reflects off.
So that makes the earthshine on the moon 46 [almost 50] times brighter than the moonshine on the earth.
So my point is that on a full moon night the earth is illuminated sufficiently so that you could see the features like land and water, etc, from space.
During a total solar eclipse the earth is completely in direct sunlight [except for the very small area of the eclipse which is insignificant]. So at that moment the earthshine on the moon should be around 50 times brighter than the moonshine on the earth at the time of a full moon.
Yes. The albedo of the moon is 3.3 times less than the albedo of the earth. So that is going to reduce the brightness of the reflected earthshine on the moon, so 50 / 3.3 = about 15. So even considering the albedo of the moon the earthshine on the moon has to be 15 times brighter than the moonshine on the earth at the time of a full moon.
So there is no dobut that if what the scientists tell us about the earth and the moon is correct during the time of a total solar eclipse the moon has to be illuminated by the earthshine. Certainly as you say it will not be as bright as when it is being illuminated by the sun, obviously. But you must be able to see the details on the moon. But the problem is you can’t. And this disproves the Western model of the sun-moon-earth system.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
As Inspector Naan has pointed out, you are missing the point about the secondary reflection. Yes, the Earth will be reflecting much more light but only a small amount of it will be hitting the moon, which then has to be reflected back to us. As light disperses by the inverse square law it can be easily shown that the amount of light reflected back after this double reflection, when also counting for the moon’s reflectivity, is very low.
But I do love the way all explanations to the contrary always have a get-out, such that Rahu is a perfect black body and does not reflect any light. Good one.
Hare Krishna
Yes. Of course. But the point I am making is on a full moon night the entire surface of the earth is quite brightly illuminated by the moon. And that earth illuminated by the moonlight is clearly visible if you are flying in a plane and looking down for example on a full moon night. You can see the water, the land, the features of the landscape, etc. And you would be able to see this from the moon also of course if you looked at the earth on a full moon night.
So the point I am making is the moon would be ten to one hundred times brighter than the earth would be on a full earth day.
So there is no question. If the modern theory that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun on a ‘full earth’ day then we have to be able to see quite clearly all the features of the moon. Particularly at the time of the total eclipse. At that time the features of the moon have to be clearly visible. Not like on a full moon of course. It will be much less illuminated than that. Think of looking at the earth from the moon on a full moon night and multiply the brightness of that by 10 to 100 times. That is how we should see the moon at the time of a solar eclipse.
But we don’t.
So this disproves the theory that solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun. So the astronomers need to look for another theory to explain solar eclipses.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
In Caitanya caritamrta Adi 5.98 I came across this
After filling half the universe with water, He made His own residence therein and manifested the fourteen worlds in the other half.
PURPORT
The fourteen worlds are enumerated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Second Canto, Fifth Chapter. The upper planetary systems are (1) Bhū, (2) Bhuvar, (3) Svar, (4) Mahar, (5) Janas, (6) Tapas and (7) Satya. The seven lower planetary systems are (1) Tala, (2) Atala, (3) Vitala, (4) Nitala, (5) Talātala, (6) Mahātala and (7) Sutala. The lower planets, as a whole, are called Pātāla. Among the upper planetary systems, Bhū, Bhuvar and Svar constitute Svargaloka, and the rest are called Martya. The entire universe is thus known as Triloka.
The gayatri mantra says om bhur bhuvah svah so can we assume that the sunshine spreads only till svar loka and the planetary systems above svar like mahar,janas etc do not depend on sulight???
Actually I had never realised that there is so much information of the universe in the Caitanya Caritamrta in so many of the verses. It is really wonderful!!!!
2.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjVZE91PWog
Above is a 1min video of an oil pressing machine. Is it the same oil pressing machine the SB is talking about??
Hare Krishna.AGTSP
Hare Krishna Divine
All the upper planetary systems depend on sunlight. Even the topmost planet Brahmaloka, it depends on sunlight. But there is no sunlight in the lower planetary systems, the subterainian heavenly planets and the hellish planets. There is no sun down there. There they have nagas with shining Jewels in their hoods and in this way those planets are illuminated. They are below bhu-mandala so the sunlight can not go through bhu-mandala. But above bhu-mandala the sunlight is there. It does not go beyond those big mountains half way out though, beyond those outer mountains there is no sunlight.
Yes. There is so much in the Caitanya-caritamrta. It is very, very wonderful.
As far as the video this oil pressing machine has some of the aspects of the oil pressing machine in the Bhagavatam. The bulls are pulling it around like in the bhagavatam, there are two axles, one yoked to the bull and a second going up to the center, so the sun god’s chariot is something like that.
But the one in the Bhagavatam has a big wheel that turns around. So I think maybe there are different types of oil pressing machines and perhaps you can keep on researching this. But it is a very good video and a good start.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hare Krishna
dear Madhudvisa Prabhu thank you very much for your valuable Information. Visiting your Website always strengthens my Krishna Counsciousness and provides me with nice preaching Equipment. As far as the Bhumandala Discussion is concerned i think i’ve found a very nice Video entitled Vedic Cosmos, not the one by Sadaputa das. It describes in great Detail the Cosmology of the Bhagavatam and also establishes how to perceive that System nicely, supported by many references from the vedic Literatures like Mahabharat and Vishnupurana, so I hope this will be helpful in Clearing up the Earth conception of the Bhagavatam. As I understood from this Video and also of my repeated study of the Fifth Canto of the Bhagavatam the Earth Planet ( Only Bharat Varsha just as stated often by Srila Prabhupada himself) is indeed a Globe which has a Diameter of 8000 miles (as per Vishnu Purana). Surprizingly this matches exactly the measurements of modern science and so confirms the divine Nature of our beloved Shastras JAY SRI KRISHNA. And also Bhagavatam says that when the Sun shines in one Country the Country on the opposite side expieriences midnight and so forth. Also that the Sun travels horizontally around the Bhumandala Planetary System and not above it indicates clearly that Bharat Varsha( Or at least whole Jambudvipa) is a Globe and so a Planet in the Sky. And the other eight heavenly Varshas of Jambudvipa either must be Multidimensional or other Planets like Bharat Varsha but in some way covered from our Vision by the Arrangement of the Lord. As far as the rest of the Dvipas up to Plaksadvipa are concerned i also have no idea, because they are not described as Heavenly Realms.
Here is the Video:
http://krishnatube.com/video/317/Vedic-Cosmos–The-Mystery-of-the-workings-of-the-universe
Hare Krishna Benjamin
Yes. I do not really like that vedic cosmos video very much because the universe they come up with just does not work. It is silly if we propose something that just does not work and that is what they have done.
As far as the Earth I do not know exactly and I think you do not know either. It is a question of realization and I have not yet realized what it is and I don’t think you have realized it either nor do I think the people who made that video have realized it.
So I will wait on this point until I have some firm information on it.
At the moment I am open to the earth being a globe but I am also open to it being other things. Really at this point in time I do not know. I accept everything that is written in the Bhagavatam as the truth but as far as the universe it is not yet clear to me. I have read it but not yet realized it…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
if that was the case, why solar eclipse Is visible in only some parts of the earth?the solar eclipse should be visible throughout the earth if it was rahu swallowing the sun
It is not Rahu swallowing the sun. Rahu does not have the power to swallow the sun. Rahu only has the power to block the light of the sun. So all Rahu can do is come in front of the sun and block the light and he can only block the light in the direct line between the sun and the earth. So you see actually Rahu’s power is very small. All demons are like this. They think they are very great but their actual power is very insignificant.
I think that by Srila Prabhupada’s and Krishna’s mercy, I have got a fairly good idea of how the universe is working. In this comment, I would like to limit my discussion to Jambudvipa, sun and the moon…………………………….
In the 9th canto, it is given that the upper part of the universe is North and the lower part of the universe is South. So from this I got a clue of what the Northern and southern course of the sun is.
Now let us consider the sun which is 1 lakh yojanas above Jambudvipa. Every day the sun completes one revolution around the sumeru mountain i.e.on the Manasottara mountain. This causes
the day and night at every place( of course the sumeru mountain plays an important role in causing night). But it is the internal motion of the sun which causes most of the other phenomenon. Now for the sake of understanding let us assume that the kala cakra is made stationary. At some point(i.e at the intersection of Saggitauras and capricon) it is at its lowest point( longest night). From that point it starts going upwards and thus its Northern course starts. At this point in the upper heavenly planets, night is almost over and sunrise starts. Now it is to be noted here that the internal motion of the sun is not only vertical. While moving upwards, it also moves starts moving horizontally from one zodiac sign to another.(now here I am taking the kala cakra to be horizontal). In the beginning of its northeen course, the horizontal movement is responsible for the sum moving into saggitaurus.
So the sun’s internal/own movement consist of both horizontal movement( in the anticlockwise direction) and obviously the vertical movement. Withing 3 months it would have moved halfway vertically upwards and horizontally 3 signs anticlockwise into Aries. For us it is the time of spring equinox(march 20). In another 3 months, it reaches its highest point vertically and horizontally it would be situated at the conjunction of Gemini and cancer. This is the day of summer solstice(June 20-22). It is the longest day in the Northern Hemisphere and shortest day in the southern hemisphere.Now what is very very interesting is that this is the very day the sun is at the farthest point from Earth. Now scientists say that aphelion the day when the sun is at the farthest point from Earth is July 4. Now ignoring the faulty instuments of the scientists, we can safely conclude that the summer solstice and aphelion occur on the same day. Or even if not on the same day, on very close days, as scientists themselves as said. Infact in many websites I read that dates of summer solstice and aphelion being so close to each other is a “coincidence” as scientists have a totally different model of rotating Earth which probably cannot explain that. But the internal movement of the Sun in the Bhagvatam beautifully explains this. So this something for all the devotees to cheer about. Hare Krishna!!! So the Bhagvatam has already scored one point over the modern structure. Back to the discussion, this point of summer solstice is also the time of noon in the heavenly planets. Now the sun starts its southern course that is it starts moving vertically downwards and obviously it continuous to move horizontally in the anti clockwise direction(i.e it moves into Cancer). Within 3 months is again comes to its vertical midpoint and horizontally into Libra.This would be the time of autumnal equinox In another 3 months( night for the heavenly planets) it would be at its lowest point. That is the time of winter solstice December 23. Once again quite obviously perihelion occurs on January 3, surely not a “coincidence”. So this yearly movement continuous year after year by the will of Krishna. Now along with the internal movement the Kala cakra(which we assumed stationary) is also moving causing day and night. But the length of day and night vary as when the sun is in the Northern course i.e higher up, it moves slower during day and faster doing night and vice versa in the southern course. From this model we also note that during summer in the Northern hemisphere the sun is higher in the sky and during winter the sun is lower in the sky. In the southern hemisphere during summer the sun is lower in the sky and during winter the sun is higher. Now since you live in the southern hemisphere, could you confirm that sun is lower in the sky during summer there?
As far as the moon is concerned, it is two lakh yojanas above the sun. Its internal motion is similar to the sun only that it completes it entire rotation in the anticlockwise direction in one month versus
the one year taken by the sun. When it is in the same zodiac as that of the sun, it is newmoon. Rahu may come or may not come, but if it comes it causes a partial or total solar eclipse depending on whether it moves in a curly or straight manner. When the moon is in the opposite zodiac it is full moon. When moon is in any of the intermediate signs , it displays its different phases. This is a brief overwiew of the moon. One thing be noted is that although the moon’s internal movement is much greater than that of the sun, during the course of a day the relative positions of the sun and the moon do not change much.That is why all the parts of the world get to see the same phase of the moon on a particular night although night occurs at different times at different parts of the world. So once again it is the internal movement of the sun and the moon and their relative postion which causes the phases the kala cakra only plays the role of “displaying” this relative position to the entire world.
Of course I have some more points to add on this structure but I feel the comment has already become too lengthy so I will post in some other day. Meanwhile could you tell me whether my description matches atleast till some extent with that of the Bhagvatam? I strongly feel it does. I do also feel that there is more to the sun’s horizontal movement than I can explain at present. Anyway one of my good artist friends as made some nice drawings of these things. Could I have your permission to send the scanned copies of these pictures to your email.Pictures do speak a thousand words.
Eagerly waiting for your reply.
Hare Krishna AGTSP
Hare Krishna Divine
Yes. It is a long comment and it hurts my brain to read it and to try and understand what you are thinking.
Particularly because you start out saying: “I have got a fairly good idea of how the universe is working.” Actually it is not so easy to understand how the universe is working. We have to be a little humble…
Really I have no idea exactly how the universe is working. I can not comprehend it very clearly. I know what is written in the Bhagavatam is correct but I can not understand it very deeply.
But I can see that you have still not understood the simple movement of the sun and how the kala-chakra is working and I do not think your idea of North and South is really correct.
It is a very beautiful system as it is described in the Bhagavatam. And very simple. But you do not understand it:
“Every day the sun completes one revolution around the sumeru mountain i.e.on the Manasottara mountain. This causes
the day and night at every place…”
This is wrong. Totally wrong.
The day and night at every place is not the same. In the heavenly planets the day and night is caused by the sun going around Manasottara Mountain. That means the day is 6 months and the night is 6 months. Because the sun goes around Manasottara mountain once every 12 months. So for six months the sun is traveling to the south and then it starts traveling to the north for 6 months. So if you take one point on Manasottara mountain as South the point on Manosottara mountain diametrically opposite to this is South. So the sun will travel from that North point to the south point in six months. So for that six months the sun is traveling to the south. Then when it gets to the South point it will start traveling to the north.
So that is North and South. It is not up and down in that sense. We imagine North to be up and South to be down on the globe earth. But that is not how it is described in the Bhagavatam.
So please give me the exact quote, chapter and verse, in the Ninth Canto where you got the idea that the bottom of the universe is south and the top of the universe is north. Maybe. But you have to provide the reference. But at least in the Fifth Canto in regard to the movements of the Sun this is not what it talking about. The Northern course of the sun is not up and the Southern course of the sun is not down. This is the sun going around in a circle. The sun goes around that circle, around Manasottara mountain once in a year. Not once in a day. It moves from north to south in six months and then back from south to north in six months. And this is around Manasottara mountain. Not up and down.
The sun does have an up and down circular movement also. And it rotates through this movement once every 24 hours. So it is this circular up and down rotation of the sun that is causing the day and night. To understand this properly you have to understand the analogy of the oil pressing machine. Which is a big stone joined to a central pole that is pulled around in circles by a bull. You need to go to some village and look at this oil pressing machine working and that should give you some idea of how the sisumara chakra is working and how the sun is moving.
So I have only commented on one or two sentences of your big comment.
Yes. Please email me the pictures. I will send you my email address so you can do that.
The problem is you are a bit like the scientists at the moment…
You started with mistakes and then you keep on going, keep on developing it more and more. All based on your mistakes. So in the end it is all wrong.
So you have to start by correctly understanding the fundamental principles before you rush off to try and explain the whole universe.
You don’t seem to understand that this 24 hour day is only here on Jambhudvipa. As soon as you get out into the other islands they have not got 24 hour days. They have 6 month days and 6 month nights. And the upper heavenly planetary systems, they are also having 6 month days and 6 month nights. Not 24 hour days as you seem to think.
And when you get to Brahmaloka the days up there last for 1000 catyur-yuga cycles [1000 x 4,300,000 aprox] That is Lord Brahma’s day, and the exact numbers you find in Bhagavad-gita. Brahma’s day and night are caused by the sun going on and off. And the sun goes off because at the end of Brahma’s day there is a devastation and the whole universe is flooded and the sun gets flooded so it goes out, so that is Brahma’s night….. Then the water goes down and the sun comes back on and that is Brahma’s day.
So as far as I can see there are three different types of day and night. The 24 hour one that we experience and that seems to be caused by the shadow of Sumuru mountain. But that shaddow only extends as far as Jambhudvipa. Beyond that, like on the south ‘pole’, they experience 6 month days and 6 month nights, because the shadow of Jambhudvipa does not extend out that far. So that is the 24 hour day and the 6 month day. And the huge day of Brahma is when the Sun is being turned off and on.
So I think your problem is you do not clearly understand the movements of the sun, the movements of the Kala-chakra, the example of the oil pressing machine, etc, and without understanding these things you have pushed on to try and understand the whole universe and, like our scientist friends, you are just basing your theories on one mistaken conclusion after another.
If you have a problem in one of your initial assumptions then everything you do after that will be wrong. That is the problem with science. So many of their initial assumptions are wrong so everything after that has to be wrong.
So see I have written so much on just a couple of your sentences. I think before you go to so much effort to understand everything you have to understand the basic movements of the sun and the Kala-chakra and the oil pressing machine.
You don’t seem to understand it. But you seem to think you understand it. I guess that is the modern education system.
Anyhow, chant Hare Krishna and be happy. Really we don’t have the capacity to understand it. We will only be able to understand it to some limited extent by the mercy of Srila Prabhupada and Krishna.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Yes you were right. This model of mine was overpowered by mental speculation. It is not very much based on the SB. So I am sorry for wasting your time but hopefully the next time I write something I would not be speculating. The pictures are a total waste and do not explain anything honestly speaking so I would not send them. The verse in the ninth canto is SB 9.16.24
TRANSLATION
Thus Jamadagni, being worshiped by Lord Paraśurāma, was brought back to life with full remembrance, and he became one of the seven sages in the group of seven stars.
PURPORT
The seven stars revolving around the polestar at the zenith are called saptarṣi-maṇḍala. On these seven stars, which form the topmost part of our planetary system, reside seven sages: Kaśyapa, Atri, Vasiṣṭha, Viśvāmitra, Gautama, Jamadagni and Bharadvāja. These seven stars are seen every night, and they each make a complete orbit around the polestar within twenty-four hours. Along with these seven stars, all the others stars also orbit from east to west. The upper portion of the universe is called the north, and the lower portion is called the south. Even in our ordinary dealings, while studying a map, we regard the upper portion of the map as north.
I think this verse is very useful.
Hare Krishna. AGTSP
Hare Krishna Divine
Do not become discouraged. You are doing very well. But it is complex and I do not understand it so I can not really help you very much but I have read the Bhagavatam and have some idea what is there, that is all.
It is a very interesting verse you have found. But I do suspect that the northern and southern course of the sun is not up and down but who knows I may be wrong.
Anyhow keep working on it and let me know as you discover new things and if you do have any pictures, animations, etc, that you think may reveal something please let me know.
I do think studying this oil pressing machine mentioned in the Bhagavatam may give you some inspiration also.
All glories to your service.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
For me only flat earth model truly fits the Vedic description of this brahmand which is a finite universe very well designed with a specific purpose. NASA’s cosmology with unlimited dark space full of some supernovas and black holes makes no sense as why would we run through that vast space aimlessly??? Also round earth makes no sense and we can NOT see any curvature anywhere ….All ancient cultures believed that the earth is flat enclosed system. …. I’ve come across amazing arguments pro flat earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5aB6oThGK8&index=1&list=PLemLiaYby3HzuKYIg0YnmrwccqtQfTOjI plus https://www.facebook.com/pages/Zetetic-Flat-Earth/812852995431891?fref=ts&ref=br_tf plus https://www.facebook.com/theflatearthconspiracy?fref=ts plus http://aplanetruth.info/ plus http://www.waykiwayki.com/ plus http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/01/water-proves-earth-flat.html Hare Krishna!
Hare Krishna Gopika
The flat-earth model is not correct. The Vedic description is correct. The flat-earth model is another instance of man speculating to try to understand the structure of the universe. So the flat-earth people have no better ability to understand the structure of the universe than NASA or the other Western scientists.
It is an interesting presentation, the flat earth model, and it does illustrate the point that what we observe around us can be explained in other ways. The flat earth model does a good job of explaining a lot of what we experience. But it does not convincingly explain everything nearly as well as the globe-earth model that has become very well developed by modern science.
But the Vedic model can explain everything much better than the globe-earth model.
What we are talking about with these man-made models are predictive modes. They are theories that predict what we observe in the universe. So the current Western model of the earth-moon-sun system for example has a good degree of accuracy in regard to predicting what we observe happening in the sky. So people accept this because there is no better explanation of what we see happening and this explanation is fairly good. But it is just a theory and may not actually reflect what is really happening. The actual system, how the universe works, may be completely different from this theory. And that is what we assert.
So we do not accept the flat-earth theory either. That is another imperfect man-made speculation. But it is instructive because it points out that the things we see in the universe can be explained using models that are completely different from what we currently accept. So it does bring into question the validity of the current model.
So I will look at the links you provided when I have time and comment some more later perhaps.
I think it would be better to say that all ancient cultures concepts of the earth and the universe match the Vedic knowledge. The Vedic description in the Bhagavatam is the correct description. Both the flat-earth and the globe-earth models are built out of imperfect mental speculation and will not be correct.
The problem is for us it is very difficult to understand actually what is being described in the Srimad-Bhagavatam in relation to the structure of the universe. So we have to concentrate on understanding it and not become diverted into accepting another imperfect man-made theory based on mental speculation like the flat earth theory.
But it is certainly interesting and I will look into it more when time permits.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
It took me quite some to comprehend what you had said but I think I have finally got atleast something .Infact one of my friends, a good artist, is drawing a picture of kala chakra, sisumara etc and once it is done I would like to scan and upload the picture so that you can tell me whether I have got the right idea.
Meanwhile I have a few questions
1. Suppose, we flatten our spherical Earth and consider it to be Jambudvipa. Then is it right to consider that when it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere, the Kala chakra is tilted more and when it is summer in the southern hemisphere the kala cakra is tilted less?
2. I came across a website
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/seasons.html
Everthing is utter nonsense except a small part under the headings equinox, summer solstice, winter solstice. Assuming it to be purely based on observation, would it be fair to assume that when the sun is on the upper part of the tilted kala cakra it moves slower and the part below it is experiencing summer and when on the lower part of the kala cakra it is moving faster and the part below it experiencing winter???Or is it the other way round?
3. As far as the size of Rahu is concerned from SB 5.24.2 I crosschecked and found that the size of Rahu to be 30000. But there is no doubt that Rahu causes the eclipse. So what could be the possible explanation?
4. What phenomenon does the internal movement of the sun cause(i.e in the direction opposite to that of Kala cakra)?
As far as Earth is flat and not a sphere even I am convinced of it. Infact every argument of the scientist has a suitable counter argument.(my argument in bracket)
1.The earth throws a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.(Rahu not Earth)
2.It is possible to circumnavigate the world; that is, to travel around the world and return to where you started( That could be done even if Earth were a circle)
Infact all other phenomenon could be explained using movement of kala cakra, samvartaka wheel and sumeru mountain. Infact wikipedia gives the last proof of a spherical Earth as “The earth appears as a disc on photographs taken from space, regardless of the vantage point”(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Summary_of_evidence_for_a_spherical_earth)
Also in another article it has been speculated by some flat earth society that the Earth is exactly as you have described. The image is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#/media/File:Flat_earth.png
Eagerly waiting for your reply.
Hare Krishna. AGTSP
Hare Krishna Divine
As I said to you in the beginning I do not understand the Bhagavatam description of the universe. So there is really no point in asking me about it because I don’t understand it. I can speculate about it, this and that, but that is not the process of Krishna consciousness. Krishna consciousness means hearing from the guru, sadhu and sastra and repeating that.
The idea is to build the model based on the information in the Bhagavatam and see what that reveals to you. I have never actually done this so I do not know.
I can say this and that about the Vedic ideas of the universe but with my current level of realization about it is all just useless speculation.
The reality is the scientists ideas, although we do not believe them, give a very good description of what we observe in relation to the earth, stars, sun, moon, planets, etc.
They have satelites at around 20,000 miles away from the earth and they can and do constantly take photographs of the whole earth disk for weather forecasting. You can check out this website for satellite pictures of the earth updated every 3 hours:
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/f_mtsat.html
So you have to understand that I do not understand this and there is no point asking me because I do not understand it.
It requires Krishna consciousness and realization. Krishna will have to reveal it to us. He has not revealed it to me yet.
Srila Prabhupada said if we keep reading the Bhagavatam and chanting Hare Krishna then Krishna will give us the intelligence to understand it. But so far I do not understand it.
And it is better if you read the Bhagavatam yourself and understand it yourself from the Bhagavatam. Then there is some hope you may come up with something.
The ideas I have mentioned are all ultimately faulty and do not work really when you try to work out all the details.
One day I hope to have the time to properly study this and if Krishna wants He can give some realization of it and if Krishna doesn’t want then He won’t. We are not independent. We are all completely dependent on Krishna. So I have registered my interest in this subject of the structure of the universe but have not had the time to seriously study it. So currently I do not understand it.
Yes. The idea of a ‘flat earth’ has been around for a long time but I think not many really believe in this now. But that is how it apparently appears to be described in the Bhagavatam.
So, as I said, you are the one currently studying the Fifth Canto, so you have to get the realizations from there and write to me with what you have discovered.
Generally if anyone asks me a question on practically everything I can give perfect answers by repeating what I have heard and realized from Srila Prabhupada and Krishna. But in the case of the structure of the universe I have heard it but not realized it. So I can not answer the questions unfortunately. I am still looking for those answers myself. So if you come across some of the answers please let me know!
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hare Krishna Divine
I completely accept everything that is written in Srimad-Bhagavatam as the true and accurate description of everything including of this universe.
I am convinced that we, under the guidance of the modern science, are completely bewildered and misdirected about the true nature of the universe, this earth plant and even the sun-moon-earth system. Our modern knowledge is all wrong. I know that.
But my problem is that as devotees we do not really care very much about the material world. Our interest is not in the material world. Our interest is in the spiritual world with Krishna. So it really does not matter much to us the fine details of how the material world is working. We have no real interest in it. We want to get out of the material world and go back home, back to Godhead.
However it is Srila Prabhupada’s vision that we should build this Vedic Planetarium and it is Srila Prabhupada’s plan that this practical demonstration of the workings of the universe as they are revealed to us in the Srimad-Bhagavatam will attract the minds of all the intelligent people of the world. So this is really a preaching tool. Srila Prabhupada wants us to build this Vedic Planetarium to convince the thoughtful people in the world that science is completely wrong in regard to the structure and workings of the universe and the correct information is given in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. This of course will be a huge advertisment for Srimad-Bhagavatam and will greatly increase the sales of Srila Prabhupada’s books and that is the main point.
But as I have said at this point in time I do not understand this Vedic concept of the universe well enough to present it in such a way that it would be appreciated by modern science. We have to be able to understand it and present it in such a way that it is reasonable to the minds of at least a percentage of the Western scientists…
I do believe there is great value in building a model of the system that is described in the Bhagavatam. No one has been able to do it in the past because practically everyone who is born and indoctrinated on this planet can not give up the world-vied that has been hammered into their heads since birth. But if someone could just actually make a model of what is written in the Bhagavatam without considering trying to make it match with what we currently understand then that may reveal some very important information…
You may find the United Nations logo interesting:
http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/maplib/flag.htm
So let me know what you think and how you are progressing on this.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
PLATE TWO
“While so excellently ruling the universe, King Priyavrata once became dissatisfied with the circumambulation of the most powerful sun-god. In circling Sumeru Hill on his chariot, the sun-god illuminates all the surrounding planetary systems. However, when the sun is on the northern side of the hill, the south receives less light, and when the sun is in the south, the north receives less. King Priyavrata disliked this situation and therefore decided to make daylight in the part of the universe where there was night. He followed the orbit of the sun-god on a brilliant chariot and thus fulfilled his desire. He could perform such wonderful activities because of the power he had achieved by worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” (p. 57, Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.1)
A few more questions……….
1.It is given that lunar year is 6 days short of calender year and solar calender is 6 days more than calender year. Is is correct that: lunar year: 354 days and solar year 366 days.
2.An eclipse occurs during a full moon or a new moon. Is it correct to say that during solar ecclipse both moon and sun are in the same zodiac whereas during lunar ecclipse they are in opposite zodiacs?
3.From the sun’s movement we know that longest day is the first day when sun enters Cancer. We also know that during the Northern course of sun duration of daytime increases by half an hour each month. Using these calculations, I found that the longest day has a duration of 13.5 hours and shortest day has a duration of 10.5 hours. However I think there are someplaces on Earth which on certain days have 24 hours daytime. How do we explain that?
4. The moon in one day travels distance travelled by the sun in 1 fortnight. In 2.25 days it travels the distance travelled by the sun in one month, Somewhere else in the purports it is given that according to stellar calculations, one month of the sun is equal to 2.25 constellation. It is also given that the moon travels through a distance of one constellation in one day. SO everthing matches…….. but how day does one month of sun have? And what is the relation between one day of sun and one day of moon??
5. Is Rahu bigger than the moon because it is given that Rahu is 30000 yojanas big wheras moon is 20000 yoj(sun 10000)
6.Am I correct in saying that the Bhu mandala plane blocks light to subterrenean heavenly planets i.e. only eveything above Bhu(bhuvar and svah) including bhu receive sunlight?
Sorry for harassing you.
Hare Krishna.AGTSP.
Hare Krishna Divine
As you know I am rusty on these things. You are reading it fresh so you probably have a better idea than me. But I will try and answer with my rusty brain…
1. I do not know about this. I am not an astrologer or an astronomer. A solar year is obviously the time it takes the sun to through all the signs of the zodiac and come back to the same place again. And that is 365 and a quarter according to the modern scientists. [they have 365 days in most years and every forth year they add another day in February to make it 366 in the leap year]. But I do not know what a Lunar year is. The moon moves around the earth in the same way the sun does in a year in a month. So I have no idea really what a lunar year would be…
2. Solar eclipses occur when there is no moon and lunar eclipses occur on full moons. They never occur at any other time. So yes. During the solar eclipse both the moon and the sun are in the same position in the zodiac. And during a lunar eclipse they are in the opposite zodiac. That is correct.
3. The variation between the length of the day and night is different depending on what position you are in. If you are on the equator then the day and night are always equal. There is no difference in the length of the day and night. If you are right on the North Pole or right on the South Pole then you get darkness for six months and light for six months. The closer you are to the equator the less difference you have between the longest day and the shortest day. And the closer you are to the North or South pole the greater the difference between the shortest and longest days. So your calculation would only be correct for a circle around the earth at a certain distance north and south of the equator. So it would be correct only on these two rings parallel to the equator and nowhere else.
4. I am not exactly sure what you are asking here. But one day on the moon is about 14 days. You know. We see the moon going from full moon to completely dark. The moon is strange. It always has the same side facing the earth. So we never get to see the other side of the moon. But you can see what is happening on the moon in regard to day and night. You can look at the moon and see a particular spot and see if it is day or night. So the day on the moon must be about 14 days and the night must be about 14 days?
5. Yes. If they are the distances given then it must be. We know for sure that the sun is first then the moon is further away than the sun. That is a very radical point. But this is clearly stated in the Bhagavatam. So our Western ideas in this regard are completely wrong.
One thing is it is Rahu who comes in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. So we can see the size of Rahu. It almost perfectly covers the sun exactly. So obviously Rahu must be closer than the sun and it is also Rahu presumably who blocks the light from the sun from hitting the moon and causes these lunar eclipses. A lunar eclipse is totally different from a solar eclipse. In a solar eclipse we see there is a solid body coming in front of the sun and blocking it out. But in a lunar eclipse there is not a solid body coming between the moon and the earth. It is something blocking the light between the sun and the moon. So that is Rahu. So in a lunar eclipse you can still see the moon but it becomes much darker and often red. There is not something coming in front of the moon like in a solar eclipse.
It is confusing. Srila Prabhupada says: “Rahu planet orbit is in between moon and sun. So when it comes in between moon and sun there is eclipse. At night it is eclipse in the moon, and daytime it is eclipse in the sun.” So that would make the order sun – rahu – moon. But then Rahu could never come in front of the sun?
But then later Srila Prabhupada says: “Rahu, yes. Rahu is between earth and sun. Moon is above sun.” So this I think has to be correct. This is the only way that Rahu could come in front of the sun. It has to be closer to us than the sun.
So if we take this idea that the sun is first then the moon then if Rahu is causing the solar and lunar eclipses Rahu obviously has to be between the earth and the sun. Because Rahu comes in front of the sun and blocks it out. And presumably it is sharing the same position in the sky as the moon, but the moon is actually behind the sun and rahu is in front of the sun. So that is how the Western astronomers have mistaken the moon to be the cause of the lunar eclipses. That is what appears to be happening. At that time all three heavenly bodies [sun, moon and rahu] are all in the same point of the sky but are at different distances from earth. And we know the order. That is Rahu, Sun, Moon. And we also know that all three appear to be the same size, or very close to the same size. So it would have to mean that the closer they are to the earth the smaller they are. Or the further away from the earth they are the larger they are. So that would make Rahu the smallest, then the sun would be bigger and the moon bigger still. So I can understand how the sun could be 10000 and the moon could be 20000. The moon would have to be bigger then the sun if it is further away than the sun. But Rahu has to be closer to the earth than the sun if it is going to be able to come in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. And we see Rahu coming in front of the sun at a solar eclipse. And it appears to be the same size as the sun in the sky. But obviously it is closer than the sun because it is coming between the sun and us. So it would seem to me that Rahu would have to be smaller than the sun?
So I do not know how we can say that it is Rahu coming in front of the sun causing the solar eclipse and then say Rahu is bigger than the sun. When we see the thing coming in front of the sun is appearing to us to be the same size as the sun in the sky?
Maybe you have it wrong or maybe there is something we do not understand here? I think the sizes should be Rahu smallest then the sun bigger and then the moon biggest… But of course we have to find the thing from the Bhagavatam, not from what I think. Maybe I am missing something?
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
A few doubts……………..
1. As far a I understood, sun revolves around Sumeru on manasottara at a distance of 157.5 lakh yojanas from sumeru. But everyday we feel as if the sun is directly overhead us. And also if we go to a beach we can see the sun touching the horizon. Whereas as far I know, I have never seen the moon or any other star touching horizon.Maybe I am incorrect. Anyway, could you put some light on the sun’s vertical movement(which makes it appear to rise and set and overhead us)
2.It is given that the sun divides the sky into two ayanas. Northern course is uttarayana and Southern course is Dakshinaya. Is is fair to assume that the Northern , southern hemispheres and equator we are taking about is moving along with the kala cakra. And what is an ayana ?
3. In a letter to Madhava on 1976 3rd October,””Some portion of the earth is flat. When you stand in any place you see flat, so for us to some extent it appears flat, but it is round.””. Also we have seen the picture of Varaha carrying a round earth. But from SB, we know that Jambudvipa is round like a lotus leaf. So where exactly does Earth become a sphere?
Eagerly waiting for your reply.
Hare Krishna.AGTSP
Hare Krishna Divine
1. The moon and the stars, everything rises and sets exactly the same way the sun rises and sets. On the no moon day the moon and the sun are rising and setting at the same time. So you can not see the moon. It rises with the sun and sets with the sun. And on the full moon day as the sun sets in the West you will see the moon rising in the East. So you will see it if you look for it. On the full moon day, as the sun sets the moon will rise in the east just like the sun rises in the east in the morning.
The stars, planets, everything, they all do this. They rise in the East and set in the West, just like the sun does.
It is the kala-chakra, the wheel of time. Everything is moving on this wheel of time together but the planets, the sun and the moon they have a separate movement and they are seen in different signs of the zodiac at different times. But the stars always remain in the same relative positions. They only move with the wheel of time, they are fixed in their relative positions.
There is nothing different from the suns vertical movement to the moon and the stars. They are all doing the same thing as the sun. You just have not noticed it.
I think the way the movements of the sun work, you need to imagine the system, it is a bit difficult to conceive. If you imagine a rod on Manosattora Mountain that turns around once every 24 hours and it has two axles. One going in towards the center and then at some point there is a pivot that joins it to another axle. The sizes are given. The second axle is shorter, maybe 1/4 the length of the first, I do not know, you have to look it up. Then that second axle is joined to the Polestar by a ‘rope of wind’ I think. So what I imagine is you have this axle that is coming down from the polestar [which is directly above Sumuru Mountain that is in the middle of Bhu-mandala] at an angle and then joining the second axle by a pivot and that longer second axle is going all the way out to Mansottara mountain. And it is being pulled around by the chariot of the sun god. So it is the power of the chariot of the sun god that is turning this whole kala-chakra, wheel of time, sisumara-chakra, whatever you want to call it, and the whole thing is rotating once every 24 hours. And at the same time in 12 months that axle on Manosattra mountain will move all the way around, 360 degrees, in one year. So that is how the seasons change. That is how the sun moves on a daily basis.
Now if you can imagine the wheel of time, the sisumara-chakra. It is a three dimensional, not two dimensional thing. It is described in the Bhagavatam like a dolphin swimming in the sky. I do not know. Perhaps with its nose down. You have to check. And all the stars, etc, are fixed on certain places on the body of the dolphin. Now this is not actually a dolphin, this is just trying to explain the concept that there is a huge three dimensional structure that rotates 360 degrees in this up and down way every 24 hours and everything we see in the sky is moving with this structure. But we are not moving.
So the sun is moving up and down with this huge thing. 360 degrees in 24 hours. And the whole structure is moving around Manosattra mountain 360 degrees in one year. So there are two simultaneous movements. The daily movement and the yearly movement. And it is the daily rotation of that axle on Manosottara mountain that inches the whole thing gradually around the mountain.
So it depends where it is on Manosattra mountain that what angle and where the second axle coming down from the polestar is pointing.
What I imagine is happening is what is causing day and night for us on Jabhudvipa is the shadow of Sumuru Mountain. I can not imagine anything else that could cause a day and night 24 hour cycle like we experience. So the sun is actually rotating with this wheel, more-or-less over the equator. But sometimes on the north side and sometimes on the south side.
It is very hard to explain and I do not know if you are getting all this. But if you imagine a big wheel joined to this second axle coming down from the polestar. That axle is at an angle so the wheel will not be straight. One side will be down and the other side will be up. And the sun is moving on that wheel. Going round once every 24 hours. So it will be summer at the lowest point of the wheel and winter at the highest point of the wheel. Now I am not sure about this. I am just giving you some idea to think about. So if this was the case it would be day and summer when the sun comes to the lower side of the wheel and the shadow of Sumuru mountain would stop the light from going to the other side and then when the sun comes over to the other side that would be higher up so it would be winter. But anyhow I think then the shadow of Sumuru mountain would be causing night on the other side.
These 24 hour days are really only experienced here on Jambhudvipa. On the top of Sumuru Mountain and out on all the other islands where the demigods live they get days of 6 months and nights of 6 months. So they get their day and night only from the rotation of the sun around Sumuru mountain. And I imagine they can see this interesting 24 hour rotation of everything in the sky during their 6 month days. I do not know.
I think you have to build the model using all the details from the Bhagavatam and see how it comes out.
I am not sure of the fine details but I am sure that the basic ideas are something like this…
2. When it is talking about the course of the sun that is talking about the 12 month rotation around Manosattara mountain. You have to think on a bigger scale. Not just the earth, but the whole universe. The sun is not just our sun. It is the sun for the universe. Everything you have learned is completely wrong… It is hard to understand exactly what it means and where is North and South in regard to our ideas of North and South. As I have said many times I do not understand it myself so I can not tell you really exactly the things. I can give you my thoughts and realizations on it. But it is not sastra. But we have to think about the ideas and hopefully it will all click into place at some time by the mercy of Srila Prabhupada and Krishna.
I do not know what is an ayana, I would have to read it again and look it up, I have not read it for ten years properly. But you can find out by reading the book. It is in the book.
We are not moving. We are stationary. That is a fact. That we can say for sure. That is because all the movements we attribute to the movement of the earth are explained in the Bhagavatam as the movements of the kala-chakra and the movements of the sun, moon and planets. The two movements we have discussed, the 24 hour rotation and the one year rotation and the angles of the second axle, all this very nicely explains what we think is the movement of the earth in a different way.
Relatively speaking it is the same thing. What is happening effectively is the universe is moving around the earth. It is not the earth rotating. We can not tell the difference because the relative movement is the same. Maybe you have been sitting in a train with another train beside you. If you are looking out the window and see the other train start to move sometimes it feels like you are moving. So it is like that. We think the earth is moving but actually the things are moving around the earth. The earth is Jambhudvipa and that is the central island surrounded by the salt water ocean and that is stationary… I know it sounds to crazy. But it must be true. Because we are inside the system and because the movements are relative there is no way we can tell which is moving. The relative motion is the same if the earth is rotating or if the universe is rotating around the earth. From inside the system we can not know which it is. But of course the authors of the Bhagavatam have the advantage of being able to see the universe from a different perspective to us…
Round and sphere are two different things. That picture of Varaha carrying the blue planet earth that we have come to know and love may not be actually the way it is. Sometimes you just have to go along with these things a bit. But the actual situation appears to be different if we read the Bhagavatam.
I don’t think anyone in ISKCON or outside of ISKCON either has really got the grasp of what the Bhagavatam is saying about the universe. This bhu-mandala planetary system is described as being lotus-like. But I have never seen anyone draw it like a lotus…
The earth must be that central island surrounded by the salt water ocean. You really have to read the whole Bhagavatam, not just the Fifth Canto. Important information about this is spread all the way through the Bhagavatam. Originally there was a central island Jambhudvipa. But then there was this person who dug it up looking for his horse… So now Jambhudvipa is not a single round island any more. It has been dug up and I presume that is how we got these different continents. etc. I don’t know if you have seen it but all the continents fit together fairly well so it does appear that originally it was one land mass that has broken up into different continents over time. So it would be easy to imagine it was originally a round island surrounded by a salt water ocean. It still is, more-or-less, but it is dug up a bit now.
So certainly we can describe the earth as round. But really it is hard to see how it is a sphere from the description of the Bhagavatam. You know there are seven levels of planetary systems below the earth. So the idea is given like that. It is not described like a sphere.
Sometimes Srila Prabhupada talks about the planets as islands in space. So maybe we could see it in that way. But you know it does not seem right to me.
But whatever we say would have to be reasonable and possible. If this is actually true then it means that the space exploration they tell us about is lies. The problem is there is no clear information from these people and you do not know if they are telling the truth or not. If they could really show us the pictures of the earth from space or if we can fly out and look back and see it then really we have to accept it is they way it is. But we can not fly out. There has been no maned space flights more than about 200 miles up since the Apollo moon landings in the 60’s and 70’s. That is widely accepted as faked. It is impossible. They did not go to the moon then. Otherwise, if they went to the moon then, then we would have kept going and would have developed the technology and by now, 50 years later, flying to the moon would be a routine thing at least for scientific and exploratory purposes. But now we can not go to the moon. No country can go to the moon. At least not send men there. And even their landers and so on look very questionable. China faked their space walk even, you could see bubbles, they did it in a tank of water. And they probably faked their Changi-1 ‘rabbit’ lunar lander. The problem is since the USA got away with faking the moon landings other countries think they can also get away with faking space exploration.
So with all this faking it is hard to believe anything the scientists say… It is really difficult. If you could get real clear information from these people it would make things much easier. Of course what we experience with our senses is always imperfect and we can not trust it. So we have to accept the sastras as our eyes. So we accept the vision of the Bhagavatam for sure. We do not care for what the scientists say, etc. But Prabhupada’s idea with the Vedic Planetarium, etc, is to convince the scientists. So if we are to do that then we have to understand the model of the universe in the Bhagavatam and build an actual working model.
So my idea is that we should basically forget everything that we have been taught about the earth and the universe. Forget about the earth being a sphere and forget about the earth rotating and orbiting the sun, etc, etc, etc. If we are to accept the Bhagavatam it seems all these ideas are wrong. So I think, for this exercise, we have to put all the ideas and theories of modern science out of our minds and just try and understand the model the Bhagavatam is presenting and try to build it as it is described in the Bhagavatam.
And as far as I can see the earth is either the whole Jambhudvipa or perhaps just a small part of Jambhudvipa. I thing it is fairly clear that things are nothing like what we think they are like. And we just have to be prepared to explore the unknown…
It is very hard for us to consider that the earth may not be a sphere but I suspect there is a good chance the earth is not a sphere… It is round. But that does not mean it is a sphere…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
By Srila Prabhupada’s Krishna’s mercy gradually some parts of the mysteries of the universe are gradually getting revealed. For example I could just not understand how the sun could move both in the clockwise and anticlockwise directions at the same time. After reading the crystal clear purports, I understood that the sun is moving along with the kala cakra in the clockwise direction and completing one revolution a day. Now, assuming the Kala Cakra to be stationary, the sun is moving in the anticlockwise direction, travelling through one zodiac in one month. SO the actual movement of the sun is a combination of movement due to Kala Cakra and its own relative motion w.r.t Kala Cakra in opposite direction……………
Now I have one problem. I have never done animation before and now although I am learning blender from a tutorial(Noob to pro) I am as of now still finding it difficult to do even simple animations. I really wonder whether I would ever be able to animate such a complex system. So shall I continue with my animation and pray Krishna to give me the strength to do it or shall I stop it? I would do exactly as you say.
Eagerly waiting for your reply.
Hare Krishna. AGTVMSP(All glories to very merciful Srila Prabhupad)
Hare Krishna Divine
Yes. You have got a nice realization about how the sun is moving with the kala-chakra [wheel of time] and at the same time it has its own opposite movement within the kala chakra. The moon and the planets are the same. An example to explain the is ants walking on a potter’s wheel. The potter’s wheel is spinning but if there are some ants walking on the wheel they are also spinning with the wheel but we will see they are moving around and at different times they are seen in different places on the wheel. In this way the sun, moon and planets move with the kala-chakra but are seen in different signs of the zodiac at different times.
Of course kala-chakra is not stationary, it is rotating one revolution every 24 hours.
The way to tackle any big complex task is to break it down into many small simple tasks. And just do one small simple task at a time and put them all together to build the big complex system. So nothing is actually big and complex if you can analyze it and break it down into many small simple tasks.
Everything seems overwhelming at the beginning and computer animation is also not easy, but at the same time it is not impossible and so many people have learned how to do it and you can also learn how to do it if you want to but you will have to spend a lot of time and energy to learn it. But if you want to learn it you can.
I can not tell you exactly what you should do. I do not know you, I do not know your skills and abilities, etc. So it is up to you to chant Hare Krishna, read Srila Prabhupada’s books and try to understand what it is that Srila Prabhupada and Krishna want you to do. That is the important thing. It does not matter what we want to do. We should do what Krishna wants us to do.
I do not think you will be able to actually build this model of the universe until you have a clear understanding of how it works, how it is situated. But building a model of what you read in the Bhagavatam may be helpful for you to understand how it works. So I think it is a good idea and you have already invested quite a bit of time and energy in trying to learn this blender so maybe you should continue with it for some time. There is some point with these things when it ‘clicks’ and becomes much clearer to you and easier for you to use these programs. But it is quite normal to feel like it is very complicated and you may never be able to understand it in the beginning. But if you preserver with it and if you have a real project. If you try to model something simple at first, some small part of the universe, not the whole thing all at once, and just build on it, add to it, as you go on it will become much easier.
So I think really you should pray to Krishna to please give you the inspiration about what He wants you to do and when He does do what He wants you to do.
In the meantime I would not give up on blender yet. Just try a bit more and see if it becomes clearer to you.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
I would like to start modelling a structure according to map 1. A few questions follow
1.Am I right that Jambudvipa is at the bottom and Sumeru mountain is inverted with its tip a Jambudvipa?
2. What are the relative positons of Mount Sumeru and Mt Manosattara, where exactly is the base of Manosattara.
3. I saw the video about the universe which you have given above. Till what extent is it correct and what are the mistakes in it….
The task is very challenging and we are totally dependent on Prabhupada’s mercy.
Eagerly waiting for your reply.
Hare Krishna. AGTSP
Hare Krishna Divine
Yes. You can not make a model of something until you understand it. That is the problem.
So you need to read it again and again and chant Hare Krishna until you understand it.
I think you have not got a clear idea yet. So you need a clear idea before you can model it…
It is a long time since I read it so right now my idea also is not so clear.
The model in the video is not really correct. Some aspects are there, but the people who made that also do not understand it. So without understanding it first you can not build the model. That is the point.
If you want to build something first you have to have the very clear idea of what you want to build. You have to understand all the points.
So all the points are very nicely explained in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. We just have to hear it and chant Hare Krishna and depend on Srila Prabhupada and Krishna so the knowledge is revealed within our hearts and we can understand it.
That is the way. So you will not be able to make a model until you understand the ideas first.
I will study this again some time hopefully not too far into the future.
But these questions you are asking are very basic and are clearly explained in the Fifth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam. So if you do not yet have these very basic points clear you need to read it again. And then I am sure these and many other points will become much clearer to you.
So as you discover how the things work please let me know. I am very interested in your progress on this. I want also very much to study this and work on this but for the next few months at least my time is totally taken up by another urgent project… But I am very anxious to hear your discoveries as you make them. You will make the discoveries by reading the Srimad-Bhagavatam over and over again and chanting the Hare Krishna mantra at least 16 rounds a day and strictly following the four regulative principles. If you do these things very sincerely it will become very clear to you and you will be able to make the model and that will be a great service to Srila Prabhupada and the devotees.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Chant Hare
I teach Astronomy in CSUN. I consider these type of work counterproductive to Prabhupad teachings. We should focus on teachings of Srimad Bhagabat Gita, rather than superfluous science. Sorry for these negative comments, but being a Goudya Vaishnab myself, I could not resist.
Hare Krishna
The problem is that we and the Astronomers have been brainwashed from babyhood with a certain conception of the universe and how it works, this theory has been presented to us as if it was a fact, but actually the current understanding of the universe and our position in it is not at all a fact. It is a theory. And we know, as Gaudiya Vaisnavas, that the currently accepted view of the universe is so totally wrong in so many ways.
So it is very important that we establish the fact that the astronomers with their little telescopes are nothing more than frogs in a well and have no hope of understanding the universe. Because we can not see the universe. We know from reading the Vedic literature that we can hardly see anything at all in the universe. If you can not see a machine, if you can only see one tiny part of a big complex machine, then you have no way of conceiving of the machine in its totality nor do you have any way of ever understanding how it works.
So it is like that with the Astronomers and the universe. They can not see the workings of the universe. They can see only some very small peripheral displays. So it is never possible for them to understand the system. They have no access to the system. Thay can no see the system, they can not perform any experiments on the system. The only way they can understand the system is to hear about it from someone who knows. Like Srila Vyasadeva for example in the Vedic literature… That is our point and we must establish this point.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
If the moon were further away from us than the Sun, then we would not see the different lunar phases (crescent, quarter, and gibbous). If the Moon really orbited outside of an Earth-Sun system, it would always appear full or nearly full to us (similar to how the outer planets always appear as full disks). We would never have new or crescent moons.
Invoking Rahu won’t help here; you might be able to explain crescent moons with it, but not quarter or gibbous moons (unless Rahu can change its shape). Also, if Rahu is completely black, wouldn’t it blot out stars behind it? Wouldn’t we see a dark shape moving through the sky where the stars should be?
You mentioned “earthshine”; it’s visible at new moon and when the moon is a thin crescent, but outside of those times the earthshine is too dim to compete with the light reflected from the lunar surface. The brightest earthshine reflected back from the moon is simply too dim to see when compared with the solar corona.
Not to be disrespectful, but you cannot reject the findings of Western science just because it contradicts what you want to believe; we have measured the distance from the Earth to the moon using several different methods, from direct measurement through laser and radar ranging, to indrect measurements using trigonometry and geometry. We have observed its movements through the sky. And I know you consider them to be hoaxes, but we have sent a number of manned and unmanned missions to the moon, and not just the US; the Soviet Union managed to land a couple of probes there as well, and the Chinese are actively working on getting there. We have images of the Earth and Moon together as taken by probes circling Mars and Saturn.
These are not hoaxes; they are not fakes; too many people have put in too much effort to be fooled.
No, Western science doesn’t know everything, nor does it claim to; but there are things it does know very well, to the point where they may be considered facts. The distance from the Earth to the moon is one of them. And no ancient wisdom or holy scripture can change that fact.
Hare Krishna!
The principle here is that Western science depends on the limited information they can perceive through their material senses plus a huge amount of speculation to come up with theories to explain the things they do not have any actual real proof or evidence for.
This is true for all of science but it is particularly true for astronomy. From our vantage point on Earth all we can see is some spots of light moving about in the sky. Sure with the moon and the planets we can get a bit of detail even with our naked eyes and certainly with telescopes. But the stars are just spots of light in the sky.
As you say man has observed these celestial bodies moving in the sky since the beginning of time presumably. And thought the history of time man has come up with many explanations about what these celestial bodies are, how they are moving, and man has always had some concept of the universe and how he thinks it is working. That is of course our nature. We want to understand how the things around us are working.
But you know it well that the ideas, even 100 years ago, as to the workings of the universe were radically different from the ideas that modern science accepts as fact today. And if you go back 200 years the ideas were again radically different. And if you were go forward 100 years in time you will also find the ideas of celestial mechanics accepted by the people then are completely different from the ideas we accept as fact today.
So the real point is we have no idea at all about the structure and workings of the universe. Our vantage point here on Earth provides us with such and insignificant glimpse of such a grand machine. We can not see the machine that works the universe. So how can we hope to understand something we can not see and something that we have no conception of.
So this is the point. We have to realize that the information we have about the universe from modern science is not factual information at all. What modern, and ancient, science has given us is a very good predictive model of the universe. It means using the model they have constructed they can explain what we observe happening in the sky in a fairly plausible way. And using their model results in predictions that we actually see happening in the sky.
So what we can admit is that modern science has a good predictive model that fairly accurately predicts the things that we observe in the sky. That is all. We do not understand what is happening in the sky. We do not understand how things are moving in the universe. We can observe that the heavenly bodies are moving in certain orbits as you say, but we can not understand exactly how they are moving and why they are moving and who is causing them to move. They can mumble about gravity but this is not an explanation.
And the most important thing is that there is no reason the actual workings of the universe should be anything like the model we have imagined. We see simply a small part of the output of a system. Realistically one can not understand a very complex and intricate system simply by observing a small part of the output of that system. For example you may observe a computer screen displaying the output of a program and that may be a program that plays a video so you may be observing that video on the computer screen. Now if you only could see a small part of that screen, a few pixels… What could you understand? All you could say is that you see a few lights that are apparently randomly changing colors. You may be able to pick up some patterns. Like the person using the computer may only use it at certain times in the day. So you may observe this pattern. So then you create a predictive model and predict that the lights will only come on at this particular time every day. So you see it happening and get very excited and think you know what is happening.
But you can have no understanding that these few pixels form the part of a large moving picture which is being displayed on a computer screen. You can have no conception of the computer that is running a program to display the video, you can have no conception the video is coming from a plastic disk, a DVD, on which it is stored in digital format. You can not understand anything at all about the system. You can just see a few flashing colored lights and you get all puffed up and think you are so intelligent because you can predict with a certain degree of accuracy the times when these lights will start to flash and the time when they will stop flashing.
So modern science, particularly astronomy, is just like this. Yes. They may be able to predict some things about what is going on in the sky, but they can have no understanding actually of what is going on in the sky…
On the other hand, the Vedic knowledge is given by persons who can actually see the workings of the universe and who actually know what is going on and how it is working. So when they say that solar and lunar eclipses are caused by rahu coming in-between then we know it for a fact that is how solar and lunar eclipses are caused. The theory that solar eclipses are caused by the moon and that lunar eclipses are caused by the Earth’s shadow is a very reasonable sounding and logical and well thought out theory for sure. But we have to accept it is only a theory. We have no actual proof that it is the earth’s shadow causing the lunar eclipses. It really does very much look like it is the moon coming in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. That would be the logical conclusion one could very easily come to. As the moon and the sun do share the same point in the sky during a solar eclipse and if the moon was closer than the sun then it would of course come in front of the sun. But because the moon is further away than the sun it can not come in front of the sun. So The moon goes behind the sun and Rahu comes in front. It is a great deception for sure. A conjurers’ trick.
As far as your speculations in regard to how the phases of the moon work, again, our Western understanding is a very logical and very sound theory. But in reality the movements of the sun and the moon are quite different to the imagined movements by the Western scientists. No on is invoking Rahu to explain the phases of the moon. And the moon is not in the same position as the other planets as you suggest. The moon and the Sun are moving in a similar way around Manosottara mountain. If you were to draw a circle and just to simplify it put the moon and the sun on that same circle then consider that the sun will move around the entire circle in 365.25 days and the moon will move around the same circle in 28 days. So you can see that it is this relative position of the sun in relation to the moon that creates the phases of the moon as we observe them from the earth.
As we see the sun and the moon move in the sky in the same way, it is not unreasonable to consider that the sun and the moon and similarly situated. We understand that the earth is relatively stationary and the sun and the moon are moving around the earth and it is this different speed of the movement of the sun and the moon that creates the phases of the moon as we observe them from the earth.
Now I do not claim that I fully understand this. I do not. And like you, I am much more comfortable with the explanation that science has given us. It makes sense to us because that is the way we have been brainwashed. This whole “world-view” that we all share is based on this idea of a tiny blue planet spinning around in space orbiting the sun. This idea has been so drummed into us that it is virtually part of our identity. So it is very difficult for us to question something that we so fundamentally believe that we know to be a fact. However, we, the followers of the Vedic literature, know for a fact that the sun is moving around the earth, the moon is moving around the earth and the earth is relatively stationary. So we know that the current world-view as to how the universe is working is completely wrong. We may not be able to completely conceive of all the details as to how it is actually working. But we do know that the ideas of science and the astronomers are very fundamentally wrong.
Now we are talking about three dimensional space here and when we say the moon is above the sun we are talking about the height above a plane. Earth is in the center of that plane. The moon and the sun are both rotating around the center of that plane and the sun is lower and the moon is higher. Now so far this is factual. And it is also factual that the distance from the center to the sun and the distance from the center to the moon is different.
At this point in time I do not know for absolute certain what those distances are but I assume the moon is much closer to the center but higher and the sun is far out but lower. So in fact the actual distance between the sun and the earth may be greater than the actual distance between the earth and the moon. But the moon is higher, by 1,600,000 miles, than the moon.
And there is yet another factor in the equation. There is a huge golden cone shaped mountain in the center of the plane. It has its point down and the wide base up in the sky. Now you have to remember here that shiny gold is a reflector, a mirror. So now the universe becomes a lot more confusing indeed. Because some of what we see in the sky may well be reflections in this huge golden mirror. But not only is this gold mountain a mirror, it is a solid object and when the moon is on one side and the sun is on the other side it is capable of blocking the light from the sun to the moon. So this may well also play a part in the phases of the moon. The no moon day happens when the sun and the moon are diametrically opposed. So in this position Mt Meru [the cone-shaped upside down golden mountain] is right in the middle between the sun and the moon and therefore the sun’s light will be completely blocked and will not reach the moon at all. And then as soon as the sun and moon get out of this diametrically opposed condition the sun’s light will start hitting the moon again.
So the point is that the more deeply one goes into the Vedic description of the universe the more one finds that the Vedic universe is also a predictive model. And strange as it may seem to us, the Vedic model does accurately predict what we see happening in the sky around us.
But we know that the Vedic model is not actually a model. It is a factual description of the systems which are actually in play in the workings of the universe.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
What if Rahu is a planet hovering above everything else and jumps between earth and sun/moon during the eclipses. We absolutely have no Idea how this works but we can always speculate. In the larger realm of Krishna Leela we mere mortals are just tiny specks. Please open up your Krishna Consciousness.
Dum maro dum…. MIT jaayen hum
Bolo shubha shaam
Hare Krishna Hare Ram.
We can only get knowledge from the sastras, the Vedas. Veda means knowledge. So what we learn from the Vedas is knowledge. So if we hear it form the Vedas we know. So we know from the Vedas that it is Rahu causing the solar and lunar eclipses. It is not the shadow of the earth. We know Rahu is a dark planet. We know so many things. Yes. We may not understand all the details but we know so many things which are actually fact. Whereas the scientists simply speculate and know almost nothing at all.
This article is hilarious. The distances to celestial objects are calculated by intricate methods of geometry and not just by random observation. The final figures have been tried and tested for over 2000 years, this is why science is amazing. Unlike you, who says that what’s written in the Vedas or in the Bhagvad Gita is a the absolute truth. Evidence, or gtfo.
Hare Krishna Juan
I understand how you feel. And I admit that for us, who have been conditioned from birth to believe in the universe as it is presented to us by science to consider anything ‘outside the box’ is very difficult. The box that has been built around us is very small and we are really convinced it is real and that there is nothing outside the box. But it is not real and there is something outside the box.
Actually so much of what we accept as fact is in reality not fact. And our understanding of the structure of the universe is one of these things. We just believe what the scientists tell us and have the faith in them that you exhibit in your posting. You say that “The distances to celestial objects are calculated by intricate methods of geometry” but of course you do not have any idea what these “intricate methods of geometry” actually are. And any geometry depends on making assumptions and if those base assumptions are wrong then the results of this geometry will also be wrong.
Just for the sake of the discussion I have done a little research on exactly how the distance from the earth to the moon was determined.
“Ancient Greek astronomers were able to make rough estimates of the distance to the Moon using information from eclipses to make geometric calculations.”
And to find out exactly how the Greeks did it you can read this lady’s description:
http://io9.com/5688939/how-to-measure-the-distance-from-the-earth-to-the-moon
So you will see that the only way the Greeks could make a guess at the distance between the earth and the moon was by noticing that during a Solar eclipse what appears to be the moon comes in front of the sun and almost exactly completely covers the sun. Of course, the do not know that what comes in front of the sun is Rahu, not the moon, but it is an understandable mistake. So they have created all this geometry which depends on what they already think they know. Which is the diameter of the earth and the distance from the earth to the sun. So using all this information which may not be correct, and making the mistaken assumption that it is the moon coming in front of the sun causing the solar eclipses with their geometry they have actually calculated the distance from the earth to rahu… Not the distance from the earth to the moon…
And we have just believe the Greeks… And fine-tuned their calculations using the same methods, only measuring everything more accurately, but still making the same mistake, assuming that it is the moon coming in front of the sun at the time of a solar eclipse.
So these figures were never “tried and tested” as you say. We just accept what the Greeks did, and we have repeated what the Greeks did with more accurate measurements. But we are using the same faulty method so we are still making the same mistakes as the mistakes the Greeks made.
You can not tell yourself what is the distance from the earth to the moon, nor can you calculate it, nor can anyone on earth calculate it. It is not possible. Space is in three dimensions. We can measure two of the dimensions for the position of the moon. We can measure the angle it is at around the 360 degrees of the zodiac and we can measure its elevation but the distance is unknown. And the size is unknown. The moon could be anywhere along that line of sight and we could speculate about the size of the moon at various distances because we could have some idea at a particular distance as to what size the moon would have to be to appear to us as it does. But there is absolutely no way we can tell what the distance of the moon is.
If it really was the moon coming in front of the sun during a solar eclipse then the Greeks may have had some idea. But it is not. It is Rahu… So they Greeks made a big mistake and we have simply accepted their mistake and now we believe their mistake to be the truth… But we are wrong.
Actually all the distances in space are unknown. They distances we ‘know’ are based on all sorts of faulty assumptions. It is a huge field. But I think you can understand that if the Astronomers base their “intricate methods of geometry” on faulty assumptions then the results are useless. So the calculation of the distance to the moon is based on the faulty assumption that it is the moon coming in front of the sun during a solar eclipse.
I know you may not agree with this but you have to agree that if it is actually Rahu, and not the moon, causing the solar eclipses, then the calculation of the Astronomers for the distance to the moon will not be the distance to the moon at all but will be the distance to Rahu…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hare krishna Madhudvisa dasa, (I hope such words from someone like me won’t insult you)
I am afraid I will have to argue with your belief. First of all I would like to express that I have no problems with religions, although I am an “atheist”. I may even say I see the point of religion in some times in our history, or even in some areas in the world right now. Also I see, I hope my observations are correct, that you like to base your assumptions on some logical evidence – this is our meeting ground.
The problem begins when someone is using false evidence (faulty assumptions in your case) to support their cause. I hope such behaviour of yours was unintentional, otherwise our conversation might have ended right now.
Your faulty assumption follows: “And we have just believe the Greeks… And fine-tuned their calculations using the same methods, only measuring everything more accurately, but still making the same mistake, assuming that it is the moon coming in front of the sun at the time of a solar eclipse.” – and the evidence supporting such claim back and forth.
Actually the intricate geometrical methods can be substitued by something we use on a daily basis, yet it wasn’t known since around 1960’s. It is called a laser. A thingy that can produce a straight beam of light which actually (as we know) can bounce of things and go back to us. So we point the laser at the moon, we “fire” a short pulse, wait for the light pulse to go back, carefully meassuring the time. Then we divide the time we’ve gotten us by two (because we must not forget the light travelled TO the moon and right BACK at us).
Such time we multiply by the speed of light et voilà the result is between 363 295 km and 405 503 km. I am sorry to blow up your bubble, but the moon actually causes the Solar eclipse.
Although I may see your point of the whole unknown, yet we actually can meassure distances. And I will be back with a continuation.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
You have to do some research Sasa. Not just speak nonsense like this.
What you are proposing, firing a laser at the moon [a quarter of a million miles away] and expecting to get it reflected back to you [another quarter of a million miles] is not possible.
I know this from so much research. It is not like you say at all. If you get a laser and point it at the moon you will not be able to detect any ‘return’ as they call it, or reflection.
There is a place in Texas that I spent some nights with the deer and pig hunting ‘old boys’ that run it. It is at an observatory but they are in a trailer with a 12″ telescope which has a big green laser firing through it and it is very impressive. You see the big green laser firing up into the sky in pulses every few seconds. And in the same telescope they have a detector.
What they are trying to prove is that the NASA missions put mirrors on the moon. According to them if you fire a laser at the moon you will not get a reflection. But if you fire a laser at one of the 12″ x 12″ reflectors put on the moon by our Apollo astronauts then you will get a reflection.
So anyhow they disprove your theory. They point a huge laser at the moon and fire it and don’t get any reflection back except if they point it at very specific positions. And even those positions are not reliable. They work sometimes but they can go for months firing their laser at these locations and get no ‘returns’ whatsoever.
I could write thousands of pages about the faultiness of this experiment but who would care about that? Anyhow they prove your theory to be false. If you point a laser at the moon and fire it and even with the best equipment, telescopes, detectors, etc, you can not detect any reflection coming back.
They try to prove there are mirrors on the moon and they get reflections back from them because the project is paid for by NASA to prove this and if they do not prove this they will get their funding cut.
But the whole experiment is completely rigged. Anyhow they prove it conclusively that if you fire a laser at the moon you can’t get a reflection back. Except they say for the 3 or 4 places where there are supposed to be mirrors on the moon.
But honestly the laser beam spreads out, by the time it gets to the moon it is hundreds of miles across at least. Just imagine what a tiny amount of light from that laser actually falls on the 12″ x 12″ mirror… And then the tiny reflection from the mirror has spread out to cover over 100 miles by the time it gets back to earth. And your telescope is only 12″ in diameter… Realistically considering this and considering the light has to go through the earth’s atmosphere twice how much light are you really going to get reflected from the moon and entering your telescope and picked up on the detector.
And the real question is how are you going to tell if it is actually your light. The light you sent out and not some other light? The light is all the same… And even if it is your light how are you going to know it is not from one of the other pulses of the laser reflected from somewhere else between the earth and the moon?
They don’t just fire one pulse. The laser is constantly pulsing and the laser light is bouncing around everywhere. So there is no way for you to know where your light is actually coming from.
And this experiment does not work anyhow. If they keep the detecter open then they are just getting the light coming in all the time. So they cheat. They already know the exact distance to the moon so after they have sent a pulse at the exact moment when they know they should be getting a return from the moon they open the detector for a tiny microsecond and if there happens to be some light there at that exact moment they assume it is a ‘return’ from the mirror on the moon…
So they are cheating. If they could fire a laser and just wait and see a real return about 6 seconds or whatever later then that would be something. But this does not work. They can not do it.
So you have just believed a whole lot of nonsense and you don’t think things through. If you thought things through you would be able to understand how stupid what you are suggesting is. You are going to shine your little torch at the moon, 1/4 of a million miles away, by their calculation, and you are going to see your little torch reflected on the moon…
Dream away.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Expect this laser experiment has been repeadted by many, MANY people out there.
Rubbish. This experiment has only ever been done regularly in 3 places: Australia, France, and McDonald Observatory in US. And none of of them have conclusively proved that retroreflectors exist on the moon. It is a very complex experiment to perform and IT DOES NOT WORK in a simple basic way. Like you can not just fire a laser at a reflector on the moon and get a return. The only way it can be done is statistically. It takes months and years to get enough data to get something statistically significant. So it is not something that you can just set up a telescope and laser and detector one night and do.
There are MANY independant methods that are used to get the Moon’s distance.
1. There’s the greek method.
2. Using Kepler’s Third Law.
3. Using parallax, two people viewing the moon from near opposite parts of the earth can get up to 2 degrees of parallax relative to each other.
This is also why different parts of the earth observer lunar and Solar eclipses at different times. This would be impossible in your model, as the maximum observeable parallax would be 0.3′ (arc minutes), compared to the moon’s diamater of 30′.
If the moon was more then 1.5 million kilomters away, then it would be impossible for one part of the world to be experiencing a total solar eclipse and one part expericneing no eclipse. Similar problems with the lunar eclipses.
4. By reflecting lasers of the moon.
There is NO WAY TO MEASURE THE DISTANCE TO ANYTHING IN THE SKY FROM EARTH!
We only have a two dimensional view of the sky. It is impossible to measure distance. Any calculation you may make to try and guess the distance of the moon or the sun or anything else in the sky requires you to make assumptions that may be incorrect. So you can not conclusively “measure” the distance of anything if you only have a two dimensional view of it.
By observing the phase of the moon you can determin the phase angle, i.e. the Sun Moon earth angle, by looking at the sun and moon both in the sky, you can work out the Sun Earth moon angle. This alone enough o prove that the sun is many times further away then the moon.
Go on try it, next time there’s a half moon.
“There is NO WAY TO MEASURE THE DISTANCE TO ANYTHING IN THE SKY FROM EARTH!
”
And, yet despite what you say, parallax is a thing.
If you only have a two dimensional view of something you have no idea at all what is the third dimension. You can not measure anything, in regard to distance.
You can try things like parallax, etc, for the moon for example. But that relies on assumptions that you have to make, and those assumptions may not be true.
And you presume the things in the sky are where they appear to be. But in reality they are not. In reality out there in the sky there are mirrors, and what we see in the sky is largely consisting of reflections and projections.
So the sky is like a house of mirrors. When you look up there you see things, but the things you see are not really in the positions they appear to be.
So your ideas about where things are in the sky and how it is working, they are all totally incorrect.
Your entire argument is based on your claim that as ‘moonshine’ illuminates earth, and it is most during full moon, so should be the case for ‘earthshine’ illuminating the moon.
Now, you say that moonshine’s illumination is enough to see that area from space, can you prove it ?
As far as earthshine illuminating the moon is concerned, I am sure that phenomenon would be observed on the moon, just as we observe moonshine on earth, but you have not put forward a logical argument supported with evidence as to why this earthshine should illuminate the moon to such an intensity that it be visible during the eclipse !
To prove that, you’ll have to prove that the amount of light that is reflected from moon, during the eclipse is intense enough that it does not get scattered in the environment before reaching the human eye, or, you’ll have to take a picture from space, with the satellite between earth and moon.
Now, as to your fictitious ‘dark planets’ of rahu and ketu, the fact that they do not exist is supported by the evidence that the trajectories of planets, that of earth and moon, and of other planets can be predicted with very high precision, taking into account, the mass of planets, suns, etc. Now, if there exists one or both of your friends rahu and ketu, they’ll have to be relatively near earth and moon, and hence influencing the trajectories too, and our prediction for the trajectory of moon, in particular, will go awry ! but that is not the case, hence again, your hypothesis is false.
Again, you say that Mr. Rahu and his ketu are ‘black’, as in they do not reflect light, please understand that the visible light is a small part of electromagnetic spectrum, if these fictitious planets did exist, they must have had given signatures in atleast one of the numerous radio telescopes that are employed around the world to explore the space, but that has not happened either.
Again, if you are so sure about the existence of these fictitious planets, all you have to do take their picture [ in the wave-lengths of X-Ray or Infrared or just show their effect on radio telescopes ], and you’ll win the case for yourself and and for the ‘vedic astrology’.
finally, I would like to ask you, if you are aware that Aryabhatta, infact did prove that the solar eclipse is caused by moon coming between and earth ?
Hare Krishna Prateek
You are wrong, my entire argument is based on the fact that the Vedas contain an actual description of the way the universe works and they state that solar and lunar eclipse are caused by Rahu. I have not mentioned Ketu at all. You have introduced that.
As far as the trajectories of the planets being very accurately predicted. Yes. That is true but these predictions in the West are based on observation of the trajectories of the planets in the past. Not on the position of various bodies in the universe. They just observe where the planets are going and record that and from that observation they come up with some formula and can make predictions for the future.
I think you might be an Indian and perhaps you know that in India for a very long time, like for example 5,000 years ago, the sages in India were completely aware of the exact positions of all the planets and constellations in the sky at any point in time. They could calculate this immediately for any point of time. This is required for astrology. So you might question as to how your Indian sages were able to calculate the exact positions of all the planets and constellations when they couldn’t even see some of the planets? You know the Indian sages 5000 years ago were not using telescopes yet they could predict the movements of all the planets and they could predict exactly to a fraction of a second when the solar and lunar eclipses would occur. But they never actually observed anything in the sky to make these predictions. So how did they do it?
Pasyate jnana sastra caksus ca, they used the sastras as their eyes. Instead of using telescopes to see the sky they looked into the Vedas to see the sky. And from the description of the universe found in the Joyti sastras they could understand the movements of all the planets and the constellations and could accurately predict all the universal events down to a fraction of a second. As an Indian you know that these ancient Indian astrological methods work. And they work simply by using the formulas provided in the Joyti-sastra, not by observation of the planets and constellations in the sky.
So what is presented in the Vedas is at least a valid calculation model for the universe. It works. If you use the Vedic formulas they do very accurately predict all the movements of the heavenly bodies. So if the model works then we have to consider that maybe the model is valid? And according to the Vedic model the eclipses are caused by Rahu, not the moon.
As far as the Earthshine, of course there is not going to be earthshine on the moon, because the moon is actually too far away from the earth for the earthshine to reach it. But if the moon was actually only 250,000 miles away then the earthshine on the ‘full earth’ day, the day on which the solar eclipses occur would be so intense that as soon as there was the total eclipse everyone would be able to clearly see the details on the moon due to the brilliant earthshine. This earthshine would be so much stronger than moonshine on earth. As I have described the scientists say the moon is no more reflective than dull black asphelt [that should make you question their sanity for starters!] and we know that the earth is predominantly brilliant shiny oceans and white clouds and even the earths atmosphere is reflective because it reflects away so much radiation and obviously light as well. So the earth is brilliantly reflective and the moon is just like dull black asphelt. And looking at the earth from the moon the earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter and the moon is only 2,000 miles in diameter. So if you were to look at the earth from the moon [using the scientists figures] you would see the earth four times bigger in the sky than what we see the moon as. And if you calculate what is the shining surface area of the earth on the fullearth day then that will be I don’t know actually, we need a mathematician here. But I think it will be at least 10 times the area of the moon as seen on earth.
So you are looking at the earth as seen from the moon being at least ten times more reflective as the moon seen from earth and as well as being ten times more reflective it is also having about ten times more surface area to reflect off [according to my guess]
So there is no doubt that, if the Western idea was true, that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon, then at the time of the total eclipse the surface of the moon would have to be completely flooded with ‘earthshine’ and during the totality all the features of the moon would be clearly visible in front of the sun.
Now since I have revealed this many images are popping up on the internet showing the ‘earthshine on the moon’ during a solar eclipse… You can do wonderful things with photoshop.
So this is a great flaw in the Western idea. It actually proves that the solar eclipses are not caused by the moon but are caused by some dark planet that does not reflect the earthshine at all.
Anyhow that is my suspicion. It may not be correct. But the fact that the solar and lunar eclipses are caused by Rahu is correct. Because that knowledge we get from the Vedas. pasyate jnana sastra caksus ca.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Sorry but if Rahu existed it would be easy to noitce by stellar occulation.
Also, the current heliocentric model is accurate enough that the existence of Neptune was predcited based merely upon it’s perturbation of Neptune.
In addition the trajectories of comets an asteroid can be accurately clacuated after a relatively short period of observations.
Not something your Vedic model can do.
No. Because Rahu hides. If Rahu is hiding you won’t find it. That is the point of hiding.
You can’t see at least 90% of the stuff in the sky. Because it does not reflect light. The only things you can see in the sky are the things that reflect light. Rahu does not reflect light, so you can’t see it.
And Rahu hides, means it is staying in the bright part of the sky. So Rahu is not occulting anything, except the sun during the solar eclipses and the moon during the lunar eclipses.
Don’t be so proud, you can see very little. There is so much out there that you have no power to see or understand.
`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
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.
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
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”
https://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
Did you forget Soviet spacecraft such as Luna 17 (unmanned, yes) that were going to the Moon around the same time? Do you really think the Soviets would participate in a cover-up that would make the United States look good?
Yes. Of course. It is like blackmail. It is something that Russia can always hold over the US. US knows Russia knows they did not go to the moon. So there is no benefit in Russia publicly advertising they know it. The power is in not disclosing it and knowing that the US do not want them to disclose it…
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
Indians also sent Satellite Chandrayan to Moon. So they exactly know where Moon is and its very near to Earth than Moon is.
Now Please don’t say that its fake.
Hare Krishna.
Hare Krishna Sushant
We do not believe in these space missions. India claimed to be able to travel to the moon for 85 million dollars. They put a sattelite up orbiting the earth and slowly bumped it up until it was close enough to the orbit of the moon and then they bumped it over to the direction of the moon and it started orbiting the moon. That is the story they tell us. But we have no idea at all what they did.
NASA, with their fake moon landings, started this faking of space and now many other countries are following. They think if the US can get away with faking space then they might as well fake space as well and get the prestige and fame that comes from joining the small number of countries that fake space missions…
India may not even know it was faked. The whole Chandranarayana mission was done in close cooperation with the US. Even the discovery of water on the moon was announced by the US, not India…
So do not be so fast to believe the scientists when they provide no proof whatsoever of what they claim they have done…
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
Madhudvisa dasa,
This is an excellent article and follow up comment. Since I recently discovered the shape of the earth I’ve been trying to figure out the phenomenon of eclipses. I agree it is obviously not a “syzigy” or the earth’s shadow, moon’s shadow, etc. Those are all lies. I’m hoping you’ve learned more about the mythology of the “black sun” Rahu!??? This may have keys to the true nature of eclipses.
I hope this information of the earth helps your understanding: We live on a flat circle enclosed in a dome shaped “snow globe case” (if you will). The sun and moon are the same size and distance from the earth. they rotate around the center “north pole” of the earth (which may or may not be a giant magnetic mountain). Eclipses and “red/blood moons” occur because… ??? THis is what I was hoping you had figured out. Any updates to your article?
Hare Krishna Josh
Unfortunately you have been listening to the flat earth people…
They have no clear idea about anything. Yes. It is very likely that the earth is nothing like the globe that NASA have given us a few fake photos of…
But the sun and the moon are absolutely not the same size and are not the same distance from Earth.
You need to read Srimad-Bhagavatam. All the details are there.
This is a perfect example of how accurate and precise is science when “make things up” to fit their agenda. Earth is Flat and this eclipse is totally understood because that’s the reality.
Bests