Website Statistics

Comments Posted By Chris

Displaying 1 To 30 Of 52 Comments

The Flat Earth?

Surely the earth is a globe because if you fly an airoplane in one rigid direction, any one direction, you go a all the way around to where you started. You may have to stop for fuel half way, but that is what happens. What do you think about that everyday phenomenon, please? I am a seeker of the truth although I also want to leave this material world one day, or in one lifetime.
Hare Krsna.

» Posted By Chris On October 29, 2021 @ 10:36 pm

Solar Eclipses are not Caused by the Moon

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.

» Posted By Chris On December 16, 2021 @ 8:21 am

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.

» Posted By Chris On December 9, 2021 @ 10:07 am

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.

» Posted By Chris On January 27, 2021 @ 10:54 pm

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.

» Posted By Chris On January 7, 2021 @ 11:22 am

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.


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.

» Posted By Chris On February 10, 2020 @ 5:25 pm

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.

» Posted By Chris On January 29, 2020 @ 7:05 am

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.

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.

» Posted By Chris On January 29, 2020 @ 6:56 am

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.

» Posted By Chris On January 19, 2020 @ 6:03 am

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?


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.

» Posted By Chris On January 19, 2020 @ 5:52 am

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.

» Posted By Chris On September 11, 2019 @ 4:42 am

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

» Posted By Chris On September 11, 2019 @ 4:19 am

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.

» Posted By Chris On September 11, 2019 @ 4:13 am

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.

» Posted By Chris On September 11, 2019 @ 4:10 am

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.

» Posted By Chris On September 7, 2019 @ 11:16 am

“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.

» Posted By Chris On September 1, 2019 @ 6:38 am

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?

» Posted By Chris On September 1, 2019 @ 6:02 am

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.

» Posted By Chris On August 24, 2019 @ 10:21 am

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.

» Posted By Chris On August 15, 2019 @ 11:21 am

“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.

» Posted By Chris On January 4, 2019 @ 4:27 pm

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?

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.

» Posted By Chris On December 21, 2018 @ 4:31 pm

“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…]

» Posted By Chris On November 16, 2018 @ 10:13 pm

Scroll down and you can see earthshine during an eclipse. Notice the effort the photographer had to go to make it visually obvious:

» Posted By Chris On October 28, 2018 @ 6:51 pm

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….

» Posted By Chris On October 28, 2018 @ 11:49 am

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:

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:


Wetzell in Bavaria
Goddard at JPL.
Lick Observatory (3.1m)

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:
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.

» Posted By Chris On October 21, 2018 @ 2:25 pm

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.

» Posted By Chris On October 13, 2018 @ 9:12 pm

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:

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.

» Posted By Chris On October 6, 2018 @ 7:32 pm

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.

» Posted By Chris On October 6, 2018 @ 12:10 am

The little-known secret to Advancement in Krishna Consciousness

Hare Krishna Madhudvisa, nice to hear from you again.

Your comments come just in time

» Posted By Chris On April 5, 2012 @ 2:07 am

The Four Philosophies: Impersonalism, Yoga, Personalism and Voidism

I am a Christian priest, and no I would disagree with you. Everything is meant to be offered to God. This is the true meaning of priest- one who offers everything to God. When we offer thanks, we are offering this to God. He smells the sacrifices when offered in love.

» Posted By Chris On May 19, 2012 @ 11:54 pm

 Page 1 of 2  1  2  » 

«« Back To Stats Page


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


6 Responses to Website Statistics

  1. Govind says:

    Hare krishna Prabhuji.,Dandvat Pranaam
    May i know about the author of the book”Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita As It Is” named mukund das prabhu.Had he any personal association with Srila Prabhupada.

    • This book is a compilation of direct quotes from Srila Prabhupada speaking about his own life. The author is Srila Prabhuapda, all Mukunda did was compile the quotes and he did a good job of it. He wrote a bit of rubbish on the last 2 pages but apart from that he did not write a single word in the book. It is a collection of Prabhupada quotes and the author of this book is Srila Prabhuapda.

  2. Vamshi says:

    Prabhu Madhudvisa Dasa.Is Jagannath Krishna himself or is just an expansion of Krishna like Vishnu,Rama etc.In Iskcon lectures I heard that Jagannath is Krishna himself,they have proved this by saying a story from Skanda purana.Is this true or Iskcon lectures are just bogus?I found no video Prabhupad talking aboyt Lord Jagannath.Oh Prabhu kindly answer my doubts.Hare Krishna

    • Yes. Lord Jagannatah is Krishna Himself. It is Jagannatha [Krishna] Balarama and Krishna’s sister Subhadra.

      So Jagannatha is deity form of Krishna. He is representation of Krishna with His brother Balarama and sister Subhadra,

      It is deity manifestation of Krishna, Balarama and Lady Subhadra,

  3. tanu says:

    Jai Govind

    I request you clear my doubts.I understand the complexities of life processes,cellular mechanisms and other natural phenomenon cannot be explained solely by reasoning and scientific theories as somewhere or other our knowledge is limited.I am a science student nd nature lover.After reading the article posted by you regarding the concept of the origin of life,a question arisen in my mind that krishna is all powerful,then, why he designed this universe in this complicated way?,why life originated? why he made all that dna etc matter space?what is his true nature? why are we given these bodies these reasoning abilities?why krishna waited for billions of years and made us take birth here?why prakrati and purush got seperated? who were those dinosaurs etc for souls are eternal were those dinosaurs primitive and other organisms we only? are there any planet lest earth having life?why will happen atlast for we are ultimately destined to reach our eternal govind? why doesn’t he appears now and clear all these doubts for one thing is sure that if even he messages in some ways we will submit to him?why krishna is so naughty why has he made everything complicated?I know these are childlish questions but still worthy to be answered…..

    I am a krishana devotee.I feel as if there is pure love for him deep in my heart.But at the same time I do believe in science.Sometimes i find myself stuck in between science emotions belief and devotion.I want to understand my Govind,I want to understand myself.

    I request my friends to please give answer to these questions.I hope i will get atleast answers of a few questions as i found this site quite appealing.

    Radhe krishna

    • Hare Krishna Jai Govind

      To clear your doubts you have to become Krishna conscious. Because unless you become Krishna conscious you will not be able to understand what Krishna consciousness is and you will remain continually bewildered.

      All these questions are irrelevant. You seem to accept that Govinda exists, that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Now you have to just surrender to the idea that you are His servant. And then you need to find out practically how you can engage in the service of Krishna. And to find out how to do this you need to read Srila Prabhupada’s books. And in the process of becoming Krishna conscious all your other questions will automatically be answered.

      The scientists can not understand anything. They only have very fragmental information about everything they study. The information we can gather through our material senses is very limited. There are so many things we can not perceive through our material senses. So they can not understand what they can not perceive.

      So instead of just speculating all these questions and being bewildered like this it is better to just admit that in our conditioned state with our very limited mind and our material senses we can not hope to understand Krishna or even this material world which is created ultimately by Krishna.

      The way to understand these things is to become Krishna conscious. We can not understand without becoming Krishna conscious.

      So you have to learn how to become Krishna conscious… That is the answer to all your questions. And Krishna consciousness is a science and that science is very elaborately presented in the books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

Back to Top ↑