Moon Paradox - Moon Eclipse

Invit pe orice cercetator serios sa viziteze vreun Observator Astronomic: va vedea clar ca forma Lunii este de disc aplatizat, ca Jupiter are aceeasi forma...vezi Nasa Fake Space Program (sirul Hubloul Fermecat) pentru detaliile complete despre falsificarea misiunilor Voyager...

Demonstratia completa a faptului ca toate explicatiile oficiale despre originea Lunii sunt absolut false, vom arata ca Soarele/Luna nu ar fi putut sa atinga o forma sferica de la bun inceput, si vom investiga toate detaliile aferente...

Moon Origin Paradox

The fission theory states that the moon long ago split off from the spinning earth, like mud flung from a bicycle wheel. Some say that the Pacific Ocean basin is the scar that remains from this loss of material. There are four distinct remains from this loss of material. There are four distinct problems with this theory. First, today's earth and moon do not have nearly enough circular motion for fission to ever have occurred. Second, although a moon splitting off from the earth would be expected to orbit directly above the equator, in actuality the moon's orbit is always tilted between 18 and 28 to the earth's equator. This is the reason why the moon appears higher or lower in the sky during different seasons. Third, while the fissioned moon was moving outward from the earth, gravity would have pulverized it into Saturn-type rings. Fourth, moon rocks are chemically different from the equivalent material on Earth. It does no appear that the moon came from the earth.

According to the capture theory, gravity brought the moon into permanent earth orbit when it once wandered too close to Earth. The main problem in this theory is the low probability that two large space objects would pass each other so closely. Another problem involves the actual "capture" mechanism-it simply wouldn't happen! Instead, the moon would continue on its journey. Finally, capture doesn't really qualify as an origin theory since it assumes the moon's prior existence.

Another lunar-origin theory, very popular today, calls for a collision between the early earth and another large planetary object. The impact resulted in an orbiting cloud of debris that eventually grouped itself into the moon. Some critics of this theory believe that such a giant impact would totally melt the earth's crust. Others question the probability of another object hitting the earth with the precise speed and direction needed to result in the formation or the moon. Some computer models show that such a collision would result in two earth moons rather that just one, or even a Saturn-type ring. The main reason for promoting the collision idea appears to be that none of the other lunar-origin theories work.

1 - DISPROVING THE SEVEN THEORIES

DISPROVING THE SEVEN THEORIES—The planets in our solar system are thought to have evolved into existence in one of seven ways:

(1) NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS—For many years the nebular hypothesis was a leading theory. According to it, the sun and its planets supposedly condensed out of swirling eddies of cold, dark, interstellar clouds of gas and dust.

But there are serious problems to the concept:

[1] Before any condensation of gas and dust could occur, the nebula would have diffused into outer space. According to *Gerald P. Kuiper, a leading evolutionary astronomer, before gravitational attraction would become significant, the particles would have to be as big as the moon.

[2] The theory requires that a complex system of roller-bearing eddies of gas and dust had to develop, which in turn gradually whirled out into sun and planets and moons. But this is an impossibility, since such vortices would have to remain perfectly intact during essentially the entire period of planetary formation. On this point, Kuiper doubted that the vortices could last long enough to get the condensation building process of the planets underway.

[3] What stopped the entire process? If it were not stopped, the entire mass of material would form one large body—without any planets and moons.

[4] Since the sun has 99.5 percent of the mass in the solar system, and all the planets and moons only have 0.5 percent of it, what would have kept these small bodies from falling into the main body?

[5] There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of our sun, but it is not condensing.

[6] Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion—that is, it is turning slowly. This 'angular momentum' is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?

(2) FISSION THEORY—The 'fission theory' says that our sun burst one day, and all our planets came from it. Then the moons shot out from each planet, stopped, turned sideways and began circling the planets they came out of. Our moon is said to have emerged from an explosion in the Pacific Ocean.

There are several problems to this theory:

[1] While the moon was moving outward from the earth, gravity would have pulverized it into rings.

[2] Moon rocks are somewhat different in composition than the material on earth.

[3] Immense outward explosions would hurl material straight out into space; they would not circle and then form carefully balanced orbits.

[4] If thrown off by the earth, the moon should circle our world over the equator, but, instead of this, it orbits our planet at a tilt of 18-28 to the earth's equator.

(3) CAPTURE THEORY—The 'capture theory' says that our planets and moons were wandering around in space and the planets were captured by the gravity of our sun, and the moons were captured by the planets.

But there are serious problems here also:

[1] The mathematical probabilities are extremely low. Given the great distances between objects in space, the likelihood that objects would pass so close to one another is very little. Millions would have to pass near the sun or planets in order for one to pass closely enough.

[2] We see no planets flying by us today! If it was occurring earlier, it should be happening with great regularity now. We have enough telescopes in place that we could easily observe such giant rocks whizzing through our solar system. They would be brilliant as they shot by, and many could easily be seen with the unaided eye.

[3] If they did pass near enough, gravity would crash into planets and suns, or they would merely fly past us; they would not pause and begin orbiting within our solar system


(3) CAPTURE THEORY—The 'capture theory' says that our planets and moons were wandering around in space and the planets were captured by the gravity of our sun, and the moons were captured by the planets.

But there are serious problems here also:

[1] The mathematical probabilities are extremely low. Given the great distances between objects in space, the likelihood that objects would pass so close to one another is very little. Millions would have to pass near the sun or planets in order for one to pass closely enough.

[2] We see no planets flying by us today! If it was occurring earlier, it should be happening with great regularity now. We have enough telescopes in place that we could easily observe such giant rocks whizzing through our solar system. They would be brilliant as they shot by, and many could easily be seen with the unaided eye.

[3] If they did pass near enough, gravity would crash into planets and suns, or they would merely fly past us; they would not pause and begin orbiting within our solar system.

How could the earth, for example, capture the moon? It wouldn't. The moon would just rush on by it. When our 'space-probes'—such as the Voyager rockets—are sent to other planets, as they pass close to them they are thrown outward and accelerated in their onward flight out into distant space.

You may ask, 'Why then does an Apollo rocket, after being hurled toward the moon, begin orbiting it?' Because closely-monitored computerized jets, controlled by telemetry signals from earth, place it into a carefully predetermined orbit at a certain distance from the moon's surface. Nothing is left to chance, for scientists know that only failure would result.

[4] By mathematical probabilities, it would take thousands of moons passing near the earth in order for one to possibly begin circling it. In the process, gravity would have brought many of them crashing into the earth, destroying both!

These solar system evolution theories appear to be little more than fables packaged in big words.

(4) ACCRETION THEORY—The 'accretion, condensation, nebular contraction,' or 'dust cloud' theory says that small chunks of material separately formed themselves into our earth and the moon.

'According to this idea, a dust cloud began to rotate. . When the mass had swept up most of the material in an eddy, a planet was formed.'—*M. Bishop, *B. Sutherland, and *P. Lewis, Focus on Earth Science (1981), p. 470.

It is said that the moon is just a pile of dust, and 'just happened' to wander near and begin circling our world, another 'pile of dust.' But two huge spheres—earth and moon—so close to each other, would fly apart or, being so close to each other, would soon crash. They would not endlessly circle one another, neither colliding nor separating.

(5) PLANETARY COLLISION THEORY—The 'collision theory' of the origin our moon theorizes that our world is said to have collided with a small planet. The resulting explosion threw off rocks which formed our orbiting moon.

Again there are problems:

[1] Such a giant impact would totally destroy our planet or melt its crust.

[2] The mathematical probabilities of another large object hurtling near our planet—and then striking it are remotely 'possible.' But the fantastically slight probabilities that it could hit our planet with just the right weight, speed, and angle of hit to produce an orbiting of the moon around our earth, make the whole process an impossibility.

[3] But more: This would have had to happen repeatedly—again and again—for all the other moons in our solar system! (At the present time 60 moons in our solar system have been counted; the 1989 Neptune flyby added 6 more to the total.)

[4] With 60 moons to form, tens of thousands of moons would have to pass by our nine planets In order for their five dozen moons to begin orbiting them! In the process, thousands of collisions would have occurred, destroying everything!

[5] If so many near collisions of giant spheres are necessary in order for moons to form, why are not such near collisions regularly occurring today? Why are not moons regularly passing us now? In order to agree with the probabilities (mathematical likelihood) that it could occur, several dozen moons would have to fly through our solar system every day now—and for billions of years beforehand—in order for 60 moons to accidentally start circling our nine planets through close fly-bys. Of course, that many wandering spheres entering our solar system would cause havoc—and the resulting collisions would smash both planets and moons and hurtle the pieces into the sun.

The truth is that the inventors of these harebrained schemes do not consider the involvement and consequences of their theories before propounding them. Compounding the problem, the public thinks that doctoral graduates must be very wise. They may be fine people, but no one lives long enough to become very smart. Forty-five years of active adulthood is hardly enough time for a man to learn enough—to even begin to recognize that he is actually quite ignorant.

(6) STELLAR COLLISION THEORY—The 'collision theory' of the origin of our entire solar system suggests that our planets, moons, and sun all spun off from a collision between stars. As with most of the other theories, the problems here are:

[1] A collision hurls materials outward. The debris would continually travel outward forever.

[2] If any pieces were drawn together by gravity, they would have smashed into each other; they would not mutually orbit.

(7) GAS CLOUD THEORY—The 'gas cloud theory' of our planets and moons teaches that gas clouds were captured by our sun, which then mysteriously formed themselves at a distance into planets and moons.

More problems:

[1] We have already observed that gas does not lump together, any more than air clumps together into solids.

[2] If these planets and moons did adhere in that manner, they would not orbit one another, nor would they all together circle the sun.

According to the theory, gas formed into dust grains, and these glued together somehow and built up into fist-sized chunks. These pieces continued to grow until they became planets and moons. But, as mentioned in the previous chapter, *Harwit calculated that it would be impossible for the gas and dust to stick together in outer space, and before any condensation of gas and dust could occur, it all would separate.

'Planetary accretion, like most other aspects of solar system origin, is imperfectly understood. Once planetary nuclei (objects some tens of kilometers in dimension, say) had gotten started, it is easy enough to see how they would grow by [gravitationally] sweeping up smaller particles. But it has always been difficult to see how the start was made, why dust particles, chondrules, and Ca, Al-rich inclusions chose to clump together.'— *J.A. Wood, The Solar System (1979), p. 187.


2 - SEVEN MORE FLAWS

SEVEN MORE FLAWS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM THEORIES—There are several other weaknesses in these theories of the origin of our solar system. Here are some of them:

(1) They do not explain where stars, planets and moons originated.

(2) They assume that the very precise and complicated orbits in our solar system came about by chance. Yet that could never happen. Man-made satellites eventually fall back to earth. All the moons should fall into their respective planets, and the planets should also fall into the sun.. Yet that could never happen. Man-made satellites eventually fall back to earth. All the moons should fall into their respective planets, and the planets should also fall into the sun.

(3) To the extent to which we have studied them, each planet and moon in our solar system has unique structures and properties. How could each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a common stellar collision?

How could each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a common stellar collision? How could each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a common stellar collision?
(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.

(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these fanciful theories

(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.

(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these fanciful theories

(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.

(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these fanciful theories. Within the time span of mankind no such evolutionary changes as those taught by astronomical theorists has occurred. How can we assume they take place! This imaginative thinking is not science, but fiction writing.

(6) Evolutionary theorists cannot come up with a rational explanation of the intricate balancings and orbital motions of moons and planets in our solar system! As mentioned earlier, Everything should crash together or fly apart.

*Sir Harold Jeffreys, one of the world's leading geophysicists, after carefully examining the evidence for each of the various theories of how our solar system evolved into existence, summarized the situation in this way:

'To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the [evolutionary] origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.'— *Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution (1970), p. 359.


Since Jeffreys made that analysis, * NASA has poured millions upon millions of dollars into a gigantic effort to find evidence on the moon and other planets for evolution. But, to date, all the evidence discovered has been in favor of creation, not evolution. In one admissive statement, NASA said this about the theories and the evidence:

'It is important to be aware that there is no one theory for the origin and subsequent evolution of the Solar System that is generally accepted. All theories represent models which fit some of the facts observed today, but not all.' —*Mars and Earth, U. S. Government Printing Office, NF-61 (August 1975), p. 1.

(There is a keen excitement to spend billions of dollars on a journey to Mars. The money could be better spent developing ways to desalinate seawater, design low-cost solar heating cells for heating and electricity, improve crop yield, or any number of other things that would help people down here. A primary objective of the trip is to try to find life on that ruddy planet. It has been hoped that this would provide evidence elsewhere of biologic evolution, since there is none on our own planet!

'If it turns out that there is life there as well, then, I would say, it would convince large numbers of people that the origins of life exist. ' —*Carl Sagan, 'Life on Mars: What Could It Mean?' in Science News, June 5, 12, 1976, pp. 378-379.

(7) Hydrogen gas never 'gravitates' into solids—anywhere, either on the earth or in outer space. Scientists now know that neither gas nor dust particles can push themselves into small or large solids. There is no known mechanism by which small particles of gas could stick together to build up chunks big enough, which would finally attract each other gravitationally, and form planets. There is no known mechanism by which dust particles in outer space could do it either.

'The idea that the sun could be formed by the gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas involves many theoretical difficulties. A gas cloud of the type presently observed out in space, unless it were a number of times greater in mass than the sun, would tend to expand rather than contract . . Furthermore, a cloud could not contract unless there were some way in which much of the resulting heat could be radiated out of the cloud. But it is not yet firmly established that a process exists that could get this heat out of the cloud.' — R.E. Kofahl and KL. Segraves, Creation Explanation (1975), p. 142.

3 – FACTS ABOUT PLANETS AND MOONS

SEVEN FACTS ABOUT PLANETS AND MOONS—Here are additional facts that do not fit into any evolutionary theory of how our solar system came into existence:

(1) A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets, yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist this is both astounding and unexplainable. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of momentum from the sun to its planets.

Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly. (But that is understandable: the One who planned it all arranged for the planets to rapidly revolve so they would not hurtle into the sun, whereas the sun would need to turn slowly so it would not tear itself to pieces and fling the pieces outward into space.)

Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this. This strange distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly.

*David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, * Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?'—*David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.


There is no possible means by which the angular momentum from the sun could be transferred to the planets. Yet this is what would have to be done if any of the evolutionary theories of solar system origin are to be accepted.

Since our sun contains 99-6/7 percent of all the mass in the solar system, why was not one large mass of material formed, Instead of our giant sun and its small planets? Why did not the remaining 1/7 of one percent just fall into the sun?

Scientists cannot account for this puzzling situation: less than one percent of the mass of the solar system is in the planets, while a staggering 98 percent of its angular momentum is in the sun. It simply does not fit into any of the cosmologies. Speaking of the mass-angular momentum problem, *Bergamini says:

'A theory of evolution that fails to account for this peculiar fact is ruled out before it starts.'—*David Bergamini, The Universe, p. 93.

(2) The orbits of Mercury, Pluto, asteroids, and comets each have an extreme inclination from the plane of the sun's ecliptic.

(3) Both Uranus and Venus rotate backwards to that of all the other planets. Seven of the nine planets rotate directly forward, in relation to their orbit around the sun. Why then does Venus rotate slowly backwards, and Uranus rotate at a 98 degree angle from its orbital plane, even though its orbit inclines less than that of any other planet? Uranus is literally rolling along!

'The spacecraft's fabulous set of data [did not] shed any clear light on why a planet should evolve as Uranus did, spinning so oddly. Perhaps . . , despite everything found in January [1966 during the Voyager 2 flyby], we'll never know the answer.'—*J.K Beatty, 'A Place Called Uranus, ' In Sky and Telescope, April 1986, p. 337.


(4) One-third of the 60 moons in our solar system have retrograde (backward) orbits, which are the opposite of the rotational direction of their respective planets. Theories of cosmology cannot explain backwards-orbiting moons.

(5) Consider Triton, the inner of Neptune's moons, which, with a diameter of 3,000 miles, is nearly twice the mass of our moon, yet it revolves backwards every six days, has a nearly circular orbit,—and is only 220,000 miles [354,046 km] from its planet! It should fall into the planet any day now, but it does not do so. *Isaac Asimov has tried to explain it with a theory that it 'was thrown away from that planet by some cosmic collision or other accident' and, at a later time, flew back and was recaptured 'by a similar accident'! (*Isaac Asimov, Intelligent Man's Guide to Science (1960), Vol. 1, p. 78.) The same explanation is used for all the other backward-orbiting moons. Evolutionists try to explain everything in the universe as nothing more than a series of fortunate accidents. If that is the explanation for Triton's retrograde motion, how about the other one-third of the moons in our solar system which rotate the same way? How many such 'accidents' may the evolutionists be permitted to invoke to prop up theories already tottering under the weight of their own unproved assumptions?

(6) There are such striking differences between planets and planets, planets and moons, moons and moons,—that the experts can produce no explanation that can explain them. If they all came from the same gas clouds, they should all be alike! But some are relatively smooth, others extremely mountainous, still others have volcanoes, and yet others are covered with a variety of peculiar chemical atmospheres.

(7) The ratio of elements in the earth is far too different from those found in the sun, and the same holds true for the other planets in comparison with the sun. How then could the earth and other planets be torn out of the sun (planetesimal theory) or come from the same gas cloud that produced the sun (nebular hypothesis)? Listen to *Fred Hoyle of Cambridge:

'Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they amount to only about 1 percent of the total mass. . The contrast [with the heavy elements which predominate in the earth] brings out . . important points. First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them.'—*Fred Hoyle, quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1967, p. 73.

Who was it who actually invented the Moon eclipse as caused by the Earth hoax?

The earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several texts written in ancient India. Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–8th century BC) thought that the Earth is spherical and believed that the Sun was 'the centre of the spheres' as described in the Vedas at the time. In his astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10) he states: 'The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the atmosphere - to himself on a thread.'

Yajnavalkya also offered the measurements still in use today, with respect to Sun/Moon dimensions (relative distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the diameters of these heavenly bodies, close to the 'modern' measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon.) His opinion that the Sun was much larger than the Earth, influenced this early heliocentric concept.

Yajnavalkya was a member of the Brotherhood of the Sun sect, known as Surya Yoga in India:

Then Yajnavalkya determined not to have any human guru thereafter. Thus he began to propitiate the Sun God, Surya. Yajnavalkya worshipped and extolled the Sun, the master of the Vedas, for the purpose of acquiring the fresh Vedic portions not known to his preceptor, Vaishampayana.

The Sun God, the glorious Lord Hari, pleased with Yajnavalkya’s penance, assumed the form of a horse and taught the sage such fresh portions of the Yajurveda as were not known to any other. This portion of the Yajurveda goes by the name of Shukla Yajurveda or White-yajurveda. It is also known as Vajasaneya Yajurveda, because it was evolved in great rapidity by Surya in the form of a horse through his manes. In Sanskrit term 'Vaji' means horse. Yajnavalkya divided this Vajasaneya Yajurveda again into fifteen branches, each branch comprising hundreds of Yajus Mantras. Kanva, Madhyandina and others learnt those branches and those became popular recensions named after them.

Then, Yajnavalkya gives the reply. 'This can be done by the Adhvaryu, the other priest. Adhvaryuna rtvija, caksusa, adityena: Just as the Hotr or the priest of the Rg Veda can free himself from death by identifying himself with the Mantras of the Rg Veda as again identified with the principle of Fire, the Adhvaryu or the second priest can overcome this limitation imposed upon him and others by finding the process of days and nights. How? By another kind of meditation which has to be performed. What is that meditation? He has to identify himself with the ultimate principle of perception which is the Sun - Surya; and it is the Sun or Surya who is the divine principle superintending over the eye. Then comes the great connection between the actual visible performance of the Yajna by means of the Yajur Veda Mantras and the eye that sees the performance. This eye cannot function unless the Sun functions. This performance, the visible sacrifice, the Yajna in front of you is nothing but an operation through the eye, and it is nothing if it is not properly superintended or presided over by the Sun. If the Sun principle withdraws itself from the eye, there is no perception, no Yajna, no sacrifice. So, let the Adhvaryu identify himself with the eye, not the physical eye but the very element of perception, and that again is to be identified with the Surya-Tattva - the ultimate presiding deity over the eyes - caksuh vai yajnasya. After all, what is sacrifice? It is a process of visualisation, and this visualisation itself is to be regarded as a sacrifice. All perceptions are Yajnas that you perform through the senses, in the mystical Yajna. Caksur vai yajnasya adhvaryuh, tad yad idam caksuh, so'asav adityah: This is the Adhvaryu, ultimately. The performer of the sacrifice is Adhvaryu and he is the Caksu or the seeing principle, which in turn is ultimately the Sun. So, the Sun is the performer of the sacrifice. Then you become one with him. The moment you become one with him, you are freed from death. And the time factor in the process of days and nights will not work there. In the sun, there is no day or night. This is how freedom from the operation of days and nights and the time element is achieved. This is freedom from the trammels of death.'



Here is how modern science describes the Moon eclipse:

One of the most remarkable coincidences found in nature is the fact that the Moon and Sun both appear the same size as seen from Earth. The Moon, a small, cold, dark body, is only 3500 km in diameter while the Sun, a self luminous, gaseous giant, is 1,400,000 km across. The coincidence arises from the fact that although the Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon, it is also 400 times farther from Earth.

Actually it would be more than a remarkable coincidence, IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE!!!


The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth;(13) at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth;(14) in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume.(15) But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

12. Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun.(16) The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

13. If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).

THE VELOCITY OF THE AXIAL ROTATION OF THE SUN AT THE TIME THE PLANETARY SYSTEM WAS BUILT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE BANDS OF MATTER TO BREAK AWAY.

BUT EVEN IF THEY HAD BROKEN AWAY, THEY COULD NOT HAVE BALLED INTO GLOBES.

But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a 'shadow' of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line? The difficulty has been met by assuming the influence of refraction, as in the following quotations:--

'On some occasions the horizontal refraction amounts to 36 or 37 minutes, and generally to about 33 minutes, which is equal to the diameter of the sun or moon; and, therefore, the whole disc of the sun or moon will appear above the horizon, both at rising and setting, although actually below. This is the reason that the full moon has sometimes been seen above the horizon before the sun was set. A remarkable instance of this kind was observed at Paris, on the 19th of July, 1750, when the moon appeared visibly eclipsed, while the sun was distinctly to be seen above the horizon.' 1

'On the 20th of April, 1837, the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set. The same phenomenon was observed on the 20th of September, 1717.' 2

'In the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590; November 3rd, 1648; June 16th, 1666; and May 26th, 1668; the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still apparently above the horizon. Those horizontal eclipses were noticed as early as the time of Pliny.' 3

On the 17th of January, 1870, a similar phenomenon occurred; .and again in July of the same year. 4

The only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon is the refraction caused by the earth's atmosphere. This, at first sight, is a plausible and fairly satisfactory solution; but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate; and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment. Take a plain white shallow basin, and place it ten or twelve inches from a light in such a position that the shadow of the edge of the basin touches the centre of the bottom. Hold a rod vertically over and on the edge of the shadow, to denote its true position. Now let water be gradually poured into the basin, and the shadow will be seen to recede or shorten inwards and downwards; but if a rod or a spoon is allowed to rest, with its upper end towards the light, and the lower end in the bottom of the vessel, it will be seen, as the water is poured in, to bend upwards--thus proving that if refraction operated at all, it would do so by elevating the moon above its true position, and throwing the earth's shadow downwards, or directly away from the moon's surface. Hence it is clear that a lunar eclipse by a shadow of the earth is an utter impossibility.

The moon's entire surface, or that portion of it which is presented to the earth, has also been distinctly seen during the whole time of a total lunar eclipse. This also is entirely incompatible with the doctrine that an eclipse of the moon is the result of a shadow of the earth passing over its surface.

Mr. Walker, who observed the lunar eclipse of March 19th, 1848, near Collumpton, says:--

'The appearances were as usual till twenty minutes past nine; at that period, and for the space of the next hour, instead of an eclipse, or the shadow (umbra) of the earth being the cause of the total obscurity of the moon, the whole phase of that body became very quickly and most beautifully illuminated, and assumed the appearance of the glowing heat of fire from the furnace, rather tinged with a deep red. . . . The whole disc of the moon being as perfect with light as if there had been no eclipse whatever! . . . . The moon positively gave good light from its disc during the total eclipse.' 1

The following case, although not exactly similar to the last, is worth recording here, as showing that some other cause existed than the earth's shadow to produce a lunar eclipse:--

'EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENA ATTENDING THE ECLIPSE.--On Saturday evening, February 27th, 1858, at Brussels, the eclipse was seen by several English philosophers who happened to be present. It was attended by a very remarkable appearance, which Dr. Forster said was wholly inexplicable on any laws of natural philosophy with which he was acquainted. The moment before contact a small dusky spot appeared on the moon's surface, and during the whole of the eclipse, a reddish-brown fringe, or penumbra, projected above the shadow of the earth. Another thing still more remarkable was the apparent irregularity of the edge of the shadow. Three persons, one of them an astronomer, were witnesses of these curious phenomena, which no law of refraction can in any way explain.' 2

'LUNAR ECLIPSE OF FEBRUARY 6TH, 1860.--The only remarkable feature in this eclipse was the visibility--it might almost be termed the brilliancy of Aristarchus. Kepler, and other spots, were comparatively lost, or at most, barely discernible, as soon as they became enveloped in the shadow; but not so Aristarchus, which evidently shone either by intrinsic or retained illumination.' 3

'The moon has sometimes shone during a total eclipse with an almost unaccountable distinctness. On December 22nd, 1703, the moon, when totally immersed in the earth's shadow, was visible at Avignon by a ruddy light of such brilliancy that one might have imagined her body to be transparent, and to be enlightened from behind; and on March 19th, 1848, it is stated that so bright was the moon's surface during its total immersion,, that many persons could not be persuaded that it was eclipsed. Mr. Forster, of Bruges, states, in an account of that eclipse, that the light and dark places on the moon's surface could be almost as well made out as in an ordinary dull moonlight night.

'Sometimes, in a total lunar eclipse, the moon will appear quite obscure in some parts of its surface, and in other parts will exhibit a high degree of illumination. . . . To a certain extent I witnessed some of these phenomena, during the merely partial eclipse of February 7th, 1860. . . . I prepared, during the afternoon of February 6th, for witnessing the. eclipse, without any distinct expectation of seeing much worthy of note. I knew, however, that upwards of eight-tenths of the. disc would be covered, and I was anxious to observe with what degree of distinctness the eclipsed portion could be viewed, partly as an interesting fact, and partly with a view of verifying or discovering the weak points of an engraving (in which I am concerned) of a lunar eclipse. After seeing the increasing darkness of the penumbra softly merging into the true shadow, at the commencement of the eclipse (about 1 o'clock a.m., Greenwich time), I proceeded with pencil and paper, dimly lighted by a distant lamp, to note by name the different lunar mountains and plains (the so-called seas), over which the shadow passed. . . . During the first hour and ten minutes I had seen nothing unexpected. . . . I had repeatedly written down my observations of the remarkable clearness with which the moon's eclipsed outline could be seen, both with the naked eye and with the telescope. At 1 hour 58 minutes, however, I suddenly noted the ruddy colour of a portion of the moon. I may as well give my notes in the original words, as copied next day in a more connected form:

''1 hour 58 minutes, Greenwich time.--I am suddenly struck by the fact that the whole of the western seas of the moon are showing through the shadow with singular sharpness, and that the whole region where they lie has assumed a decidedly reddish tinge, attaining its greatest brightness at a sort of temporary polar region, having 'Endymion' about the position of its imaginary pole. I particularly notice that the 'Lake of Sleep' has disappeared in this brightness, instead of standing out in a darker shade. And I notice that this so-called polar region is not parallel with the rim of the shadow, but rather west of it.

''2 hours 15 minutes.--Some clouds, though very thin and transparent, now intervene.

''2 hours 20 minutes.--The sky is now clear. How extra-ordinary is the appearance of the moon! Reddish is not the word to express it; it is red--red hot! I endeavour to think of various red objects with which to compare it, and nothing seems so like as a red-hot penny--a red-hot penny, with a little white-hot piece at its lower edge, standing out against a dark blue background; only it is evidently not a mere disc, but beautifully rounded by shading. Such is its appearance with the naked eye; with the telescope, its surface varies more in tint than with the naked eye, and is not of quite so bright a red as when thus viewed. The redness continues to be most perceptible at a distance from the shadow's southern edge, and to be greatest about the region of 'Endymion.' The 'Hercynian Mountains' (north of 'Grimaldus') are, however, of rather a bright red, and 'Grimaldus' shows well. 'Mare [paragraph continues] Crisium' and the western seas, are wonderfully distinct. Not a trace to be seen of 'Aristarchus' or 'Plato.'

''2 hours 27 minutes.--It is now nearly the middle of the eclipse. The red colour is very brilliant to the naked eye. . . . After this, I noticed a progressive change of tint in the moon.

''2 hours 50 minutes.--The moon does not seem to the naked eye of so bright a red as before; and again I am reminded by its tint, of red-hot copper, which has begun to cool. The whole of 'Grimaldi' is now uncovered. Through the telescope I notice a decided grey shade, at the lower part of the eclipsed portion, and the various small craters give it a stippled effect, like the old aqua-tint engravings. The upper part is reddish; but two graceful blueish curves, like horns, mark the form of the 'Hercynian Mountains,' and the bright region on the other limb of the moon. These are visible also to the naked eye.

''At 3 hours 5 minutes the redness had almost disappeared; a very few minutes afterwards no trace of it remained; and ere long clouds came on. I watched the moon, however, occasionally gaining a glimpse of its disc, till a quarter to 4 o'clock, when, for the last time on that occasion, I saw it faintly appearing through the clouds, nearly a full moon again; and then I took leave of it, feeling amply repaid for my vigil by the beautiful spectacle which I had seen.'' 1

At the time of totality (the lunar eclipse of June 1st, 1863), the moon presented a soft, woolly appearance, apparently more globular in form than when fully illuminated. Traces of the larger and brighter mountains were visible at the time of totality, and particularly the bright rays proceeding from 'Tycho,' 'Kepler,' and 'Aristarchus.' . . . . At first, when the obscured part was of small dimensions, it was of an iron grey tint, but as it approached totality, the reddish light became so apparent that it was remarked that the moon 'seemed to be on fire;' and when the totality had commenced, it certainly looked like a fire smouldering in its ashes, and almost going out.' 1

In ordinary cases the disc appears, during a total eclipse, of a reddish hue, the colour being, indeed, of the most various degrees of intensity, passing, even when the moon is far removed from the earth into a fiery glowing red. Whilst I was lying at anchor (29th of March, 1801), off the Island of Baru, not far from Cartagena de Indias, and observing a total lunar eclipse, I was exceedingly struck by seeing how much brighter the reddened disc of the moon appears in the sky of the tropics than in my northern native land.' 2

'The fiery, coal-glowing colour of the darkened (eclipsed) moon. . . . The change is from black to red, and blueish.' 3

'Great was the confusion created in the camp of Vitellius by the eclipse which took place that night; yet it was not so much the eclipse itself--although to minds already disturbed this might appear ominous of misfortune--as it was the circumstance of the moon's varying colours--blood-red, black, and other mournful hues--which filled their souls with uneasy apprehensions.' 4

The several cases above advanced are logically destructive of the notion that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth. As before stated, the earth is proved to be a plane, without motion, and always several hundred miles below the sun and moon, and cannot, by any known possibility come between them. It cannot therefore intercept the light of the sun, and throw its own shadow upon the moon. If such a thing were a natural possibility, how could the moon continue to shine during the whole or any considerable part of the period of its passage through the dark shadow of the earth? Refraction, or what has been called 'Earth light,' will not aid in the explanation; because the light of the moon is at such times 'like the glowing heat of firer tinged with deep red.' 'Reddish is not the word to express it, it was red--red hot.' 'The reddish light made it, seem to be on fire.' 'It looked like a fire smouldering in its ashes.' 'Its tint was that of red-hot copper.' The sun light is of an entirely different colour to that of the eclipsed moon; and it is contrary to known optical principles to say that light when refracted or reflected, or both simultaneously, is thereby changed in colour. If a light of a given colour is seen through a great depth of a comparatively dense medium, as the sun is often seen in winter through the fog and vapour of the atmosphere, it appears of a different colour, and generally of such as that which the moon so often gives during a total eclipse; but a shadow cannot produce any such effect, as it is, in fact, not an entity at all, but simply the absence of light.

From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.

HERE ROWBOTHAM COMMITTED ONE OF SEVERAL SMALL MISTAKES; THE MOON CAN REFLECT THE SUN'S LIGHT, IN ADDITION TO BEING SELF-LUMINOUS.

1st. A reflector is a plane or concave surface, which gives off or returns what it receives:--


If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.

If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed, cold will be reflected.

If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.

If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.


A reflector will not throw off cold when heat is placed before it; nor heat when cold is presented. If a red light is received, red light will be returned, not blue or yellow. If the note C is sounded upon any musical instrument, a reflector will not return the note D or G, but precisely the same note, altered only in degree or intensity.

If the moon is a reflector of the sun's light, she could not radiate or throw down upon the earth any other light than such as she first receives from the sun. No difference could exist in the quality or character of the light; and it could not possibly differ in any other respect than that of intensity or quantity. It has been asserted in opposition to the above, that the moon might absorb some of the rays of light from the sun and reflect only the remaining rays. To this it is replied that absorption means speedy saturation: a piece of blotting paper, or a lump of hard sugar, or a sponge when brought into contact with any fluid or gaseous substance, would only absorb for a short time; it would quickly become saturated, filled to repletion, and from that moment would cease to absorb, and ever afterwards could only reflect or throw back whatever was projected upon it. So the moon, if an object without light of her own, might at the beginning of her existence absorb the sun's ray's, and, fixing some, might return the others; but as already shown, she could only absorb to saturation, which would occur in a very short time; and from this point of saturation to the present moment she could not have been other than a reflector--a reflector, too, of all which she receives.

We have then, in order to know whether the moon is a reflector, merely to ascertain whether the light which we receive from her is, or is not the same, in .character as that received from the sun.



1st. The sun's light is generally, and in an ordinary state of the atmosphere, of an oppressive, fierce, semi-golden, pyro-phosphorescent character; while that of the moon is pale, silvery and gentle; and when shining most brightly is mild and non-pyrotic.

2nd. The sun's light is warm, drying, and preservative, or antiseptic; animal and vegetable substances exposed to it soon dry, coagulate, shrink, and lose their tendency to decompose and become putrid. Hence grapes and other fruits by long exposure to sunlight become solid, and partially candied and preserved; as instanced in raisins, prunes, dates, and ordinary grocers' currants. Hence, too, fish and flesh by similar exposure lose their gaseous and other volatile constituents and by coagulation of their albuminous and other compounds become firm and dry, and less liable to decay; in this way various kinds of fish and flesh well known to travellers are preserved for use.

The light of the moon is damp, cold, and powerfully septic; and animal and nitrogenous vegetable substances. exposed to it soon show symptoms of putrefaction. Even living creatures by long exposure to the moon's rays, become morbidly affected. It is a common thing on board vessels going through tropical regions, for written or printed notices to be issued, prohibiting persons from sleeping on deck exposed to full moonlight, experience having proved that such exposure is often followed by injurious consequences.

'It is said that the moon has a pernicious effect upon those who, in the East, sleep in its beams; and that fish having been exposed to them for only one night, becomes most injurious to those who eat it.' 1

'At Peckham Rye, a boy named Lowry has entirely lost his sight by sleeping in a field in the bright moonlight.' 2

'If we place in an exposed position two pieces of meat, and one of them be subjected to the moon's rays, while the other is protected from them by a screen or a cover, the former will be tainted with putrefaction much sooner than the other.' 1

Professor Tyndall describing his journey to the summit of the Alpine Mountain, Weisshorn, August 21st, 1861, says:--

'I lay with my face towards the moon (which was nearly full), and gazed until my face and eyes became so chilled that I was fain to protect them with a handkerchief.' 2

3rd. It is a well known fact, that if the sun is allowed to shine strongly upon a common coal, coke, wood, or charcoal fire, the combustion is greatly diminished; and often the fire is extinguished. It is not an uncommon thing for cooks, housewives, and others to draw down the blinds in summer time to prevent their fires being put out by the continued stream of sun-light pouring through the windows. Many philosophers have recently attempted to deny and ridicule this fact, but they are met, not only by the common sense and every-day experience of very practical people, but by the results of specially instituted experiments.

It is not so well known perhaps, but it is an equally decided fact, that when the light of the moon is allowed to play upon a common carbonaceous fire, the action is increased, the fire burns more vividly, and the fuel is more rapidly consumed.

4th. In sun-light a thermometer stands higher than a similar thermometer placed in the shade. In the full moon-light, a thermometer stands lower than a similar instrument in the shade.

5th. In winter when ice and snow are on the ground, it is patent to every boy seeking amusement by skating or snow-balling, that in the sun light both ice and snow are softer and sooner thaw than that behind a wall, or in the shade. It is equally well known that when, in frosty weather, the night is far advanced, and the full moon has been shining for some hours, the snow and ice exposed to the moon-light are hard and crisp, while in the shade, or behind any object which intercepts the moon's rays it is warmer, and the ice and snow are softer and less compact. Snow will melt sooner in sun-light than in the shade; but sooner in the shade than when exposed to the light of the moon.

6th. The light of the sun reflected from the surface of a pool of water, or from the surface of ice, may be collected in a large lens, and thrown to a point or focus, when the heat will be found to be considerable; but neither from the light of the moon reflected in a similar way, nor direct from the moon itself, can a heat-giving focus be obtained.

7th. The sun's light, when concentrated by a number of plane or concave mirrors throwing the light to the same point; or by a large burning lens, produces a black or non-luminous focus, in which the heat is so intense that metallic and alkaline substances are quickly fused; earthy and mineral compounds almost immediately vitrified; and all animal and vegetable structures in a few seconds decomposed, burned up and destroyed.

The moon's light concentrated in the above manner produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature. In the focus of sun-light there is great heat but no light. In that of the moon's light there is great light but no heat. That the light of the moon is without heat, is fully verified by the following quotations:---

'If the most delicate thermometer be exposed to the full light of the moon, shining with its greatest lustre, the mercury is not elevated a hair's breadth; neither would it be if exposed to the focus of her rays concentrated by the most powerful lenses. This has been proved by actual experiment.' 1

'This question has been submitted to the test of direct experiment. . . . The bulb of a thermometer sufficiently sensitive to render apparent a change of temperature amounting to the thousandth part of a degree, was placed in the focus of a concave reflector of vast dimensions, which, being directed to the moon, the lunar rays were collected with great power upon it. Not the slightest change, however, was produced in the thermometric column; proving that a concentration of rays sufficient to fuse gold if they proceeded from the sun, does not produce a change of temperature so great as the thousandth part of a degree when they proceed from the moon.' 2

'The most delicate experiments have failed in detecting in the light of the moon either calorific or chemical properties. Though concentrated in the focus of the largest mirrors, it produces no sensible heating effect. To make this experiment, recourse has been had to a bent tube, the extremities of which terminate in two hollow globes filled with air, the one trans-parent, the other blackened, the middle space being occupied by a coloured fluid. In this instrument, when caloric is absorbed by it, the black ball takes up more than the other, and the air it encloses increasing in elasticity, the liquid is driven out. This instrument is so delicate that it indicates even the millionth part of a degree; and yet, in the experiment alluded to, it gave no result.' 1

'The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning-glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer. M. De la Hire collected the rays of the full moon when on the meridian, by means of a burning-glass 35 inches in diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer. No effect was produced though the lunar rays by this glass were concentrated 300 times. Professor Forbes concentrated the moon's light by a lens 30 inches in diameter, its focal distance being about 41 inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding 6000 times. The image of the moon, which was only 18 hours past full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermopile. Although the observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing that half the rays were reflected, dispersed and absorbed), though the light of the moon was concentrated 3000 times, not the slightest thermo effect was produced.' 2

In the 'Lancet' (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees. It is the common experience of the world that the light of the sun heats and invigorates all things, and that moon light is cold and depressive. Among the Hindoos, the sun is called 'Nidâghakara,' which means in Sanscrit 'Creator of Heat;' and the moon is called 'Sitala Hima,' 'The Cold,' and 'Himân’su,' 'Cold-darting,' or 'Cold-radiating.'

Poets, who but utter in measured words the universal knowledge of mankind, always speak of the 'Pale cold moon,' and the expression is not only poetically beautiful, but also true philosophically.


'The cold chaste moon, the queen of Heaven's bright Isles;
Who makes all beautiful on which she smiles:
That wandering shrine of soft yet icy flame
Which ever is transformed, yet still the same;
And warms not but illumes.'

The facts now placed in contrast make it impossible to conclude otherwise than that the moon does not shine by reflection, but by a light peculiar to herself--that she is in short self-luminous. This conclusion is confirmed by the following consideration. The moon is said by the Newtonian philosophers to be a sphere. If so, its surface could not possibly reflect; a reflector must be concave or plane, so that the rays of light may have an 'angle of incidence.' If the surface is convex, every ray of light falls upon it in a line direct with radius, or perpendicular to the surface. Hence there cannot be an angle of incidence and therefore none of reflection. If the moon's surface were a mass of highly polished silver, it could not reflect from more than a mere point. Let a silvered glass ball of considerable size be held before a lamp or fire of any magnitude, and it will be seen that instead of the whole surface reflecting light there will only be a very small portion illuminated. But during full moon the whole disc shines intensely, an effect which from a spherical surface is impossible. If the surface of the moon were opaque and earthy instead of polished like a mirror, it might be seen simply illuminated like a dead wall, or the face of a distant sandstone rock, or chalky cliff, but it could not shine intensely from every part, radiating brilliant light and brightly illuminating the objects around it, as the moon does so beautifully when full and in a clear firmament. If the earth were admitted to be globular, and to move, and to be capable of throwing a shadow by intercepting the sun's light, it would be impossible for a lunar eclipse to occur thereby, unless, at the same time, the moon is proved to be non-luminous, and to shine only by reflection. But this is not proved; it is only assumed as an essential part of a theory. The contrary is capable of proof. That the moon is self-luminous, or shines with her own light, independently. The very name and the nature of a reflector demand certain well-defined conditions. The moon does not manifest these necessary conditions, and therefore it must be concluded, of necessity, that she is not a reflector, but a self-luminous body. That she shines with her own light independently of the sun, thus admits of direct demonstration.

As the moon is self-luminous, her surface could not be darkened or 'eclipsed' by a shadow of the earth--supposing such a shadow could be thrown upon it. In such a case, the luminosity instead of being diminished, would increase, and would be greater in proportion to the greater density or darkness of the shadow. As the light in a bull's-eye lantern looks brightest in the darkest places, so would the self-shining surface of the moon be most intense in the umbra or deepest part of the earth's shadow.

The moon shining brightly during the whole time of eclipse, and with a light of different hue to that of the sun; and the light of the moon having, as previously shown, a different character to that of the sun; the earth not a globe, and not in motion round the sun, but sun and moon always over the earth's plane surface, render the proposition unavoidable as it is clearly undeniable that a lunar eclipse does not and could not in the nature of things arise from a shadow of the earth, but must of sheer logical necessity be referred to some other cause.

We have seen that, during a lunar eclipse, the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something; that this 'something' is a definite mass, because it has a distinct and circular outline, as seen during its first and last contact with the moon. As a solar eclipse occurs from the moon passing before the sun (HERE ROWBOTHAM MAKES THE SECOND OF HIS MISTAKES; THE SUN ECLIPSE CANNOT AND IS NOT CAUSED BY THE MOON; HE GAVE THIS QUICK EXPLANATION IN ORDER TO AVOID THE COMPLICATIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE ARISEN), so, from the evidence above collected, it is evident that a lunar eclipse arises from a similar cause--a body semi-transparent and well-defined passing before the moon; or between the moon's surface and the observer on the surface of the earth.

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

'We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth.'

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

'There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth.'

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

'Invisible moons exist in the firmament.' 1

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods, &c. 2

At the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1850, the president stated that,---

'The opinion was gaining ground, that many of the fixed stars were accompanied by companions emitting no light.'

'The 'changeable stars' which disappear for a time, or are eclipsed, have been supposed to have very large opaque bodies revolving about or near to them, so as to obscure them when they come in conjunction with us.' 3

'Bessel, the greatest astronomer of our time, in a letter to myself, in July 1844, said, 'I do indeed continue in the belief that Procyon and Sirius are both true double stars, each consisting of one visible, and one invisible star.' . . A laborious inquiry just completed by Peters at Königsberg; and a similar one by Schubert, the calculator employed on the North American Nautical Almanack, support Bessel.' 1

'The belief in the existence of non-luminous stars was prevalent in Grecian antiquity, and especially in the early times of Christianity. It was assumed that 'among the fiery stars which are nourished by vapours, there move other earthy bodies, which remain invisible to us!' Origenes.' 2

'Stars that are invisible and consequently have no name move in space together with those that are visible.' Diogenes of Appollonica. 3

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of 'dark cosmical bodies of great size.' 4

We have now seen that the existence of dark bodies revolving about the luminous objects in the firmament has been admitted by practical observers from the earliest ages; and that in our own day such a mass of evidence has accumulated on the subject, that astronomers are compelled to admit that not only dark bodies which occasionally obscure the luminous stars when in conjunction, but that cosmical bodies of large size exist, and that 'one at least is attached as a satellite to this earth.' It is this dark or 'non-luminous satellite,' which when in conjunction, or in a line with the moon and an observer on earth, IS THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF A LUNAR ECLIPSE.

Those who are unacquainted with the methods of calculating eclipses and other phenomena, are prone to look upon the correctness of such calculations as powerful arguments in favour of the doctrine of the earth's rotundity and the Newtonian philosophy, generally. One of the most pitiful manifestations of ignorance of the true nature of theoretical astronomy is the ardent inquiry so often made, 'How is it possible for that system to be false, which enables its professors to calculate to a second of time both solar and lunar eclipses for hundreds of years to come?' The supposition that such calculations are an essential part of the Newtonian or any other theory is entirely gratuitous, and exceedingly fallacious and misleading. Whatever theory is adopted, or if all theories are discarded, the same calculations can be made. The tables of the moon's relative positions for any fraction of time are purely practical--the result of long-continued observations, and may or may not be connected with hypothesis. The necessary data being tabulated, may be mixed up with any, even the most opposite doctrines, or kept distinct from every theory or system, just as the operator may determine.

'The considered defects of the system of Ptolemy (who lived in the second century of the Christian era), did not prevent him from calculating all the eclipses that were to happen for 600 years to come.' 1

'The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur.' 1

'Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War.' 2

'Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come.' 3

'The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.' 4

'No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory.' 5

'It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction.' 1

The simplest method of ascertaining any future eclipse is to take the tables which have been formed during hundreds of years of careful observation; or each observer may form his own tables by collecting a number of old almanacks one for each of the last forty years: separate the times of the eclipses in each year, and arrange them in a tabular form. On looking over the various items he will soon discover parallel cases, or 'cycles' of eclipses; that is, taking the eclipses in the first year of his table, and examining those of each succeeding year, he will notice peculiarities in each year's phenomena; but on arriving to the items of the nineteenth and twentieth years, he will perceive that some of the eclipses in the earlier part of the table will have been now repeated--that is to say, the times and characters will be alike. If the time which has elapsed between these two parallel or similar eclipses be carefully noted, and called a 'cycle,' it will then be a very simple and easy matter to predict any future similar eclipse, because, at the end of the 'cycle,' such similar eclipse will be certain to occur; or, at least, because such repetitions of similar phenomena have occurred in every cycle of between eighteen and nineteen years during the last several thousand years, it may be reasonably expected that if the natural world continues to have the same general structure and character, such repetitions may be predicted for all future time. The whole process is neither more nor less--except a little more complicated--than that because an express train had been observed for many years to pass a given point at a given second--say of every eighteenth day, so at a similar moment of every cycle or eighteenth day, for a hundred or more years to. come, the same might be predicted and expected. To tell the actual day and second, it is only necessary to ascertain on what day of the week the eighteenth or 'cycle day' falls.

Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.

Footnotes
131:1 'Astronomy and Astronomical Instruments,' p. 105. By George G. Carey.

131:2 McCulloch's Geography, p. 85.

131:3 'Illustrated London Almanack for 1864,' the astronomical articles in which are by James Glaisher, Esq., of the Greenwich Royal Observatory.

131:4 See 'Daily Telegraph,' July 16th, 1870.

133:1 'Philosophical Magazine,' No. 220, for August, 1848.

133:2 'Morning Star,' of Wednesday, March 3rd, 1858.

133:3 Norman Pogson, Esq., Director of the Hartwell Observatory, in 'Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,' March 9th, 1860.

136:1 The Hon. Mrs. Ward, Trimleston House, near Dublin, in 'Recreative Science,' p. 281.

137:1 'Illustrated London Almanack for 1864,' by Mr. Glaisher, of Royal Observatory, Greenwich. A beautiful tinted engraving is given, representing the moon, with all the light and dark places, the so-called mountains, seas, &c., plainly visible, during the totality of the eclipse.

137:2 'Physical Description of the Heavens,' p. 356. By Humboldt.

137:3 Plutarch ('De Facia in Orbe Luna'), T. iv., pp. 780-783.

137:4 Dion Cassius (lxv., 11; T., iv.; p. 185. Sturz.)

141:1 'Wanderings in the East,' p. 367. (Edit. 1854). By Rev. J. Gadsby.

141:2 Newspaper Paragraph.

142:1 'Lectures on Astronomy,' p. 67. By M. Arago.

142:2 'Illustrated London News,' of September, 7th, 1861.

144:1 'All the Year Round,' by Dickens.

144:2 'Museum of Science,' p. 115. By Dr. Lardner.

145:1 'Lectures on Astronomy,' p. 66. By M. Arago.

145:2 'Lectures on Chemistry,' p. 334. By Dr. Noad.

149:1 'Herschel's Astronomy,' pp. 521 and 616.

149:2 'Philosophical Magazine' for 1848, p. 80.

149:3 'Encyclopædia Londinensis.' Art., 'Fixed Stars.'

150:1 'Physical Description of the Heavens.' By Humboldt, p. 183, 1867.

150:2 Ibid., p. 184.

150:3 'Comos,' p. 122. By Humboldt.

150:4 Ibid. Notes, p. 71.

151:1 Smith's 'Rise and Progress of Astronomy.

152:1 'Lectures on Natural Philosophy,' p. 370. By Professor Partington.

152:2 Professor Barlow, in 'Encyclopædia Metropolitana,' p. 486.

The heliocentric theory cannot account for the 2 daily high tides

Most places on earth that have ocean tides have 2 high tides and 2 low tides each 24 hour day separated by about 12 hours and 20 minutes:

http://www.reformation.org/high-low-tides-chart.jpg

Typical tidal data for New York harbor for the month of July, 2006.

High Tide 1 Low Tide 1 High Tide 2 Low Tide 2
3:32 a.m. 10:01 a.m. 4:05 p.m. 10:20 p.m.
4:13 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 4:43 p.m. 11:06 p.m.
4:59 a.m. 11:10 a.m. 5:26 p.m. 11: 35 p.m.
5:50 a.m. 12:02 p.m. 6:13 p.m. 11:59 p.m.

Notice that the tides occur about 1 hour later each day. That is because the moon takes about 25 hours to orbit the earth while the sun takes 24.

The heliocentric theory has the moon moving very, very slowly around the earth and taking ONE MONTH to complete an orbit

This can account for ONE tide each day but certainly not TWO.

In the rotating earth heliocentric theory, only ONE LOCATION on earth comes into contact with the moon every 25 hours.


The son of a well known scientist informed his father that he does not believe the Moon can cause the ocean tides. Intrigued by his answer, the father asked why. The son replied: ONLY THROUGH PRESSURE CAN WATER MOVE.

The Moon could not possibly cause any tides:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

Simultaneous Sun/Moon eclipses in history

Plinius Secundus in the Chapter XIII, Of Eclipses, in his SECOND BOOKE OF THE HISTORIE OF NATVRE:

Also that the Sunne and Moone twice in thirtie daies were darkened above the earth: howbeit seene this was not equally in all quarters, but of divers men in divers places: and that which maketh mee to marvell most of all in this wonder, is this, that when agreed it is by all, that the Moone light is dimmed by the shaddow of the earth, one while this eclipse happeneth in the West, and another while in the East: as also, by what reason it happened, that seeing after the Sunne is up, that shaddow which dusketh the light of the Moone, must needs be under the earth: it fell out once, that the Moone was eclipsed in the West, and both planets to be seen above the ground in our horison. For that in twelve daies both these lights were missing, and neither Sun nor Moone were seene: it chaunced in our time, when both the Vespasians (Emperors) were Consuls, the father the third time, and the son the second.

(Now, Plinius does not realize that, the Moon could not be dimmed by the shadow of the Earth, given that BOTH eclipses happened at the same time)



From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:

This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.

From Columbus words is clear that double eclipses were also known to the king and to the queen.


The Report of Pilate to Caesar

And him Herod and Archelaus and Philip, Annas and Caiaphas, with all the people, delivered to me, making a great uproar against me that I should try him. I therefore ordered him to be crucified, having first scourged him, and having found against him no cause of evil accusations or deeds.

And at the time he was crucified there was darkness over all the world, the sun being darkened at mid-day, and the stars appearing, but in them there appeared no lustre; and the moon, as if turned into blood, failed in her light. And the world was swallowed up by the lower regions, so that the very sanctuary of the temple, as they call it, could not be seen by the Jews in their fall; and they saw below them a chasm of the earth, with the roar of the thunders that fell upon it. (1)


Mahabharata:

. . in course of the same month both the Moon and the Sun have undergone eclipses on the thirteenth days from the day of the first lunation. The Sun and the Moon therefore, by undergoing eclipses on unusual days, will cause a great slaughter of the creatures of the earth.