The Dark Moon

[GaryN]

This thread is a spinoff from the Boring Sun on the old forum, in which I tried to show that once outside of Earths atmosphere the lighting, illumination and vision conditions are very different from the conditions we have been lead to believe exist out there. The experiments required to show scientifically just how different those conditions are have not been performed and are not likely to ever be.
One of the observations that puzzled me was concerning our Moon, and the fact that it can be seen sometimes during the day against a bright blue sky:
(Sorry, no pretty pictures anymore)
http://eyesonthesky.com/Blog/tabid/80/E ... -Moon.aspx
How bright is the blue sky? Depending on the latitude of the observer and the angle of inclination, between 10,000 and 50,000 Lux seem to be the accepted values, so would it stand to reason that the Moon would need to be brighter than that to be so clearly visible during the day?
How bright is the Moon? This is the most recent article I have found, and measuring the brightness at night under ideal conditions it turns out to be very low, about 0.32 Lux.
How bright is moonlight?
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/artic ... 31/2938119
That figure surprised me as sometimes the full Moon seems so bright that it hurts my eyes to look at it. Figures over the years have proposed up to 3 Lux, so maybe this is not an exacting science. This document from 1971 points out that an extra source of light from the luminescence of the lunar surface by way of solar UV excitation must be considered.
Photometry of the lunar surface
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/ ... ...5..265L
All measurements are of course from Earth, and it seems even the LADEE mission does not provide any figures from lunar orbit. The photographs taken by the various lunar orbiter missions including the Apollo ones do not help much in trying to determine the lunar surface illumination levels as most of the films were special order for NASA and in many cases had 'mission specific' spectral layers that we have no details of. How the films were developed and processed is also unclear.
The Apollo astronauts on the surface took no direct measurements of surface illumination. They did take a spot meter on the early missions but it was only ever used for interior photography. I have had it confirmed in an email reply from Ames Research Center that there are no measured illumination levels for the the daytime near side lunar surface.
So what about theoretical illumination levels? If we use the Solar Constant values then the lunar surface will receive the same amount of direct solar radiation that Earth does. Looking directly at the Sun the Lux values are given as between 100,000 and 200,000 Lux, so should the light falling on the Lunar surface be taken as 200,000 Lux as there is no atmosphere to dim it? Then if we use the albedo of the Lunar surface at an average of 10%, would the surface be reflecting 20,000 lux? If we used that figure and model the Lunar surface as a diffuse reflector then what figure do we obtain lunar brightness measured at Earth? As the Photometry of the lunar surface paper shows, the calculations are not so simple, so I am considering only the full moon figures.
I have calculated values by a couple of diffent methods but would be interested to hear what figures others may arrive at. In the next post i will try to show from the equipment and methods utilised by NASA that the near side lunar surface illumination levels are much darker that those arrived at by theory, and at a maximum only 300 Lux, while the far side maximum illumination is probably less than 100 Lux.

[Brent72]

It's a fascinating question GaryN. How does the moon emit so much EM radiation? Are you going to post more evidence that light changes its nature when it enters Earth's atmosphere? I look forward to your next posts on this.
It also makes me wonder how we can see the rocky planets shining like stars in the night sky, when they have little atmosphere and very little reflected light? How can the red planet for example look so similar to Antares?

[GaryN]

It's a fascinating question GaryN. How does the moon emit so much EM radiation? Are you going to post more evidence that light changes its nature when it enters Earth's atmosphere? I look forward to your next posts on this.
It also makes me wonder how we can see the rocky planets shining like stars in the night sky, when they have little atmosphere and very little reflected light? How can the red planet for example look so similar to Antares?

Hi Brent72, yes, fascinating indeed!
There really is a dearth of photometric values for not just the Moon but Mars and Mercury. We have the Mars web cam showing us a redish atmosphere, but how bright is it? Diminutive Mercury is so dark that no visible light photos of any part of its surface can be shown and the instruments on Mercury Messenger only show the surface in IR (NAC 700–800 nm) or spectrally (WAC 395–1,040 nm). If there is an engineering camera then I see no mention of it, but even if there was it would not see the surface of Mercury as it is so dark. But how bright should the surface of Mercury be given its proximity to the Sun and its surface albedo? Again, no data. Neither Mars or Mercury should be naked eye visible from Earth so the only way they can look like they do is if it is the gamma/x-ray/UV from Mars or Mercury that are being transformed by Earths atmosphere. For the surface of Venus a figure of 14,000 lux is given, but we have no measured values from orbit so it too is probably very dull when seen from orbit, but Akatsuki told us very little about visible wavelengths.

[Brent72]

Yes I think many people will be questioning mainstream science once space tourism gets going! If you've got a spare $200k, you could buy a ticket for a trip into space next year yourself... https://astronomy.com/news/2020/08/six- ... ce-in-2021

[GaryN]

" If you've got a spare $200k, you could buy a ticket for a trip into space..."

No, you get a ticket to below low Earth orbit and all the windows will be facing Earth, none look away from Earth, just as it is from the ISS. The planned lunar orbital flight for some very wealthy tourists has been cancelled.

[GaryN]

Curiouser and curiouser! I have been attempting to find anyone willing or perhaps able to even take a guess at the daytime surface illumination levels for the Moon, Mars or Mercury. None of those who claim impressive scientific credentials has even responded to my queries. Am I mad for even asking the question?
Assuming the measurements recorded in Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 58, Issue 1, 1 February 2017, Pages 1.31–1.32 are correct then using the .25 lux value of full moon light, and knowing the lunar distance, then by using the inverse square law I come up with 12,100 Lux at 1 lunar radius. So the moon really would seem quite bright, the need for dark visors for the lunar astronauts quite reasonable.

Looking at the video cameras used during the Apollo missions though, the specifications do not seem to match the expected illumination levels.

Apollo 8 RCA TV Camera.
https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images ... Camera.pdf
From the specs.
Sensitivity 0.1 ft.-candle highlight illumination minimum to 30 ft.·candles, maximum. 30 ft-candles is 322 lux

Westinghouse Apollo Lunar TV camera.
Westinghouse part no. 607R962
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/MSC-SESD-28-105.pdf
From the article:
"Furthermore, the light level will vary from 0.007 to 12,600 ft-lamberts.(.024 to 43,000 lux)
Perhaps the 43,000 lux is for the maximum value at opposition?

"The television camera is sensitive to low light intensity levels;therefore, sources of light producing an illumination level greater than 90 foot-candles at the surface of the lens must not be allowed in the field of view when operating with the wide angle lens." (90 foot-candles is 1000 lux, an overcast day by Earth surface illumination levels.

So why send such a sensitive camera to a location that is expected to be very bright?

[GaryN]

Venus surface illumination levels are another unknown, but from the only photo of the surface taken by one of the Venera probes it would seem quite bright. No actual measured lighting levels are given but it was determined sufficient for photography, as is evidenced:
https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/ ... f.png.webp
Venus reflects over 70% of the assumed visible light that strikes it, which is why it is so bright in our night sky, they say. Again there are no illumination levels as measured from orbit, and we can see no visible details of the surface from orbit as the atmosphere is so dense. So how does the surface appear to be quite well illuminated if the light is blocked by such a dense atmosphere? Scattering?
The US probe that landed did not have a visible light camera, just more evidence to me that a scientific investigation of illumination levels would reveal a discrepancy they would rather not address.

[GaryN]

The surface temperature of Venus is much higher than predicted by atmospheric models based on the atmospheric characteristics and the Suns heat and light at its distance from the Sun. Perhaps their assumptions are wrong, and the ALT model the correct one. It is the Suns ionising radiation interacting with the atmosphere that crates the thermal infrared within the lower atmosphere. The process by which this occurs is well known but not considered by mainstream planetary scientists.

Atmospheres and Planetary Temperatures
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/clim ... tures.html

[FS3]

Phps interesting!

NASA to Announce New Science Results About Moon

...NASA will announce an exciting new discovery about the Moon from the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) at a media teleconference at 12 p.m. EDT Monday, Oct. 26. Audio of the teleconference will stream live on the agency’s website.

This new discovery contributes to NASA’s efforts to learn about the Moon in support of deep space exploration...

Any more insights from the community?

FS3

[moses]

At a full moon the reflected sunlight should be very bright in the centre of the Moon and not very bright near the edges. However if the light was generated on the Moon and went off in all directions then we would expect the whole surface to be about the same brightness. What do we see?

The sunlight is causing the Moon to emit light rather than reflecting the sunlight. On Earth the light would be emitted by the atmosphere, however the atmosphere a long way from the direction of the Sun should be less bright than that near the direction of the Sun. Puzzling.

It appears that the region above the surface of the Earth is emitting light in all directions but in sunlight there is more light generated. So it could be generated above the atmosphere. It could be an aetheric effect. And that could be why mainstream does not go there.

At half Moon we still see the dark side of the Moon so it is emitting light at a low level. There are experiments of life emitting light so it is not unreasonable to think that planets are alive and emitting light. I can't see the mainstream going there either.

Wow GaryN you were right!
Cheers,
Mo

[Higgsy]

At a full moon the reflected sunlight should be very bright in the centre of the Moon and not very bright near the edges. However if the light was generated on the Moon and went off in all directions then we would expect the whole surface to be about the same brightness.

That would be true if the Moon is an ideal Lambertian reflector, but it's not. Where a surface has features which are large compared to the wavelength of light and where the scale of the height of the surface features is about the same or greater than their lateral extent then the intensity of the reflected light is greater than would be predicted for a Lambertian reflector for non-normal insidence of light. Look up the Oren-Nayar reflectance model.

The sunlight is causing the Moon to emit light rather than reflecting the sunlight.

No, it's not.

At half Moon we still see the dark side of the Moon so it is emitting light at a low level.

No. At half-moon, the side not illuminated by the sun is illuminated by earthlight (which is sunlight reflected from the Earth.

[GaryN]

I like this comment from the article posted by JHL
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =382#p3271

It’s amazing that we were so spectacularly wrong about something we should understand really well: the sun,” said Brian Fields, a particle astrophysicist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Looks like Horace Winfield Webster was on the right track after all. The Lunar surface and atmosphere emit gamma rays too, so there is likely a complex interplay of emission and absorption processes going on, but only Earths lower atmosphere can convert the non-visible wavelengths to visible, which is the only reason the Moon is visible from Earth.
Experiments are the only way to answer many questions about the visibility of the stars and other bodies from space and I was hoping maybe Elon Musk would send a camera up on one of his Starlink satellites so we could compare what is seen from LEO with what that same camera would see from Earth. Then the same camera on a satellite in geostationary orbit from just outside the Van Allen belt. If the radiation from the sun or stars is at gamma energies then the camera should see nothing. Of course he would not be allowed to put a regular camera up there. Or maybe he is in on the game too?

Moses:
"The sunlight is causing the Moon to emit light rather than reflecting the sunlight."

Higgsy: "No. At half-moon, the side not illuminated by the sun is illuminated by earthlight (which is sunlight reflected from the Earth."

There is no VISIBLE sunlight to begin with, so all illumination can not be from reflected visible light and must be the product of a transformation of shorter wavelengths. Once at visible wavelength it can be reflected and be visible for distances determined by the inverse square law.
Earths upper atmosphere also emits gamma radiation, which makes the lunar surface and atmosphere also emit lower level gamma radiation, far UV, UV. The whole lighting and illumination in space thing needs to be rigorously tested, it never will be.

[Higgsy]

There is no VISIBLE sunlight to begin with, so all illumination can not be from reflected visible light and must be the product of a transformation of shorter wavelengths.

Nice story. Any evidence for that grotesque claim? I mean published papers not news reports or conspiracy theories.

[JP Michael]

I mean published papers not news reports or conspiracy theories.

Argumentum ab auctoritate. A claim's verity does not rely on the (presumed) authority of its source. You cite "published papers" as an assumed authority against "news reports or conspiracy theories." This is a fallacy. News reports and conspiracy theories can be sources of truth irregardless of assumed or presumed authority. For example, a newspaper article or blog on a conspiracy theorist website about a retracted and falsified Lancet paper on the (imaginary) dangers of hydroxychloroquine treatment for COVID-19 is just as much an accurate source of truth as the withdrawal notice published in the 'authoritative' Lancet itself, whereas the original 'published paper' is now a false authority.

Who made 'published papers' the only source of accepted truth, anyway?

The argument from authority is based on the idea that a person should conform to the opinion of a perceived authority or authoritative group.

A.k.a cognitive bias. You expect GaryN to conform to your preconceived ideas of 'authoritative' physics and dismiss his argument as "newspaper articles and conspiracy theories" rather than engage in rational, evidence-based debate. Thus, the idea that an argument can be rejected simply because it does not have a presumed or assumed authority is also a type of ad hominem fallacy.

GaryN does not need peer-reviewed 'authoritative' citations from published journals to make his case. He only needs normal, rational, evidence-based propositional argumentation. It's then up to you to refute the propositions or assumptions, not dismiss them ad-hom as you have done here.

@GaryN - Do you have any comment on LaFreniere's Light Theory? I am wondering if the Sun, Moon, Earth etc. are generating pulses of EMF much akin to Lafreniere's electron theory. In other words, a planetary or stellar body can be thought of as a kind of giant LaFreniere electron (oscillating spherical standing wave).

[Higgsy]

I mean published papers not news reports or conspiracy theories.

Argumentum ab auctoritate.

I wasn't making an argument. I was asking a question. I think I'm getting my answer.