The ‘earthshine’ bombarding the moon at the time of a total solar eclipse would be at least ten times brighter than the moonshine on the earth on a full moon night.
Solar Eclipses are not Caused by the Moon
According to Vedic Astronomy, the most ancient and accurate system of astronomy on the planet, solar eclipses are not caused by the Moon coming in front of the Sun as astronomers believe. Rather the Moon is described as being further away than the Sun and what happens at the time of a solar eclipse is the Moon goes behind the Sun and a dark planet call Rahu comes between the Sun and the Earth.
Of course, because we have been conditioned to believe as fact the structure of the universe as it has been taught to us since childhood we find it very difficult to accept such a thing. But it only requires a little thought to see that actually the ‘modern’ scientific idea is incompatible with our observations and the timeless Vedic knowledge is compatible with our observations.
Look at the moon on a full-moon night. It is shining so brightly that it lights up the whole surface of the Earth. On a full moon night you can very clearly see everything. Of course it is not as bright as the sunshine, but everything is very clearly visible. And if you were to view the earth from space on a full moon night it would not be dark. It would be illuminated by the moonshine and all the features of the earth would be clearly visible.
As there is ‘moonshine’ there must also be ‘earthshine’. Much of the earth is covered by water which is a good reflector of sunlight. In fact the scientists say ‘earthshine’ is much brighter than ‘moonshine’. And according to our understanding the earth is enormous in comparison to the size of the moon. So if the moonshine can completely illuminate this earth on a full moon night then the earthshine can completely illuminate the moon.
The ‘earthshine’ bombarding the moon at the time of a total solar eclipse would be at least ten times brighter than the moonshine on the earth on a full moon night.
If Western astronomers are correct the solar eclipse would be the prefect time to see the moon illuminated by earthshine. The shadow created which causes the solar eclipse on earth is, according to NASA, at most 167 miles wide. So if you were sitting on the moon during a solar eclipse you would see an extremely bright earth planet with a dark circle of only 167 miles wide. This is not enough to diminish the earthshine in any significant way. So even though the sun is behind the moon, the full force of the sunshine is hitting the earth and reflecting off those shiny blue oceans and reflecting off the land also. So the moon is completely illuminated by earthshine, even though the sun is directly behind it.
Now if Western astronomers were correct, if you were in that 167 mile wide path of the total eclipse of the sun when the sun was completely covered you would of course see the sky become black and then you could see the stars. But if the sun was covered by the moon you would be able to see the moon quite clearly, in front of the sun, illuminated by the ‘earthshine’. Of course it would not be as bright as the full moon, but the earthshine would certainly illuminate the surface of the moon so we could clearly see it and clearly make out the features on the moon’s surface.
But this does not happen… During a solar eclipse the sun goes completely black and even though the sunlight is blocked out and the sky goes black one can not detect the moon at all. It is just black. No moon. Of course we should be able to see the features on the moon as it is being bathed in brilliant earthshine… The sun should disappear and we should see the stars and in the place of the sun we should see the moon, illuminated by the earthshine. But we don’t see this.
So what does that mean? It means it is not the moon causing the solar eclipses. We know from the Vedas that what causes solar eclipses is a dark planet, currently unknown in the Western world, which hides in the shadow of the moon. Rahu is relatively close to us, around about the same distance as we think the moon is, but it is completely black, it does not reflect light at all. So even though there is plenty of earthshine falling on Rahu, because it is a black planet none of that light will be reflected back so we will see the sun simply blacked out in the sky on a full eclipse. Which is what we do see.
So this is absolute proof that the assumption of Western astronomers that solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming between the earth and the sun is wrong. Because if that was the case we would be able to see the moon during the full eclipse of the sun as it would be bathed in bright earthshine….
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Aplanetruth.info 
In Western Astrology Rahu and Ketu are known to us as the Moon’s Nodes (North and South). Astrology students are taught that these are merely two imaginary points where the Moon and Earth’s orbits intersect, and yet, respectively, they play a significant role in each person’s natal chart in regards to karmic carryover.
If the earth is in fact flat-ish and unmoving, and there is no possibility of the earth and moon intersecting in orbit, then this astrological aspect is also an impossibility and therefore makes absolutely no sense.
However… if the Moon’s Nodes are actual physical bodies orbiting out there, as this article suggests, then I would further suggest that they might be the two ends of some kind of artificial antenna since the Moon’s Nodes are known to always be precisely 180 degrees apart — they are always in complete opposition to each other, always.
An interesting possibility to ponder on — thanks.
LikeLike
these may very well be the limiters at 23.5 degrees Capricorn and Cancer where the Sun and Moon traverse in the electromagnetic field. Whatsayyou?
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/e97-085
Abstract
An investigation into the sources of ice-rafted detritus in the central Arctic Ocean using microprobe analyses of detrital Fe oxide minerals discovered unique magnetic spherules in 20 of 144 potential source sample sites from the shelves and coastal areas around this ocean. The spherules occur only in samples from the Queen Elizabeth Islands, Canada. These grains are characterized by a 45-60 µm diameter, pitting throughout, and are occasionally found as multiple joint spherules. They have the optical properties of magnetite and, most remarkably, contain both ZnO and NiO in subequal amounts of up to 25%. The Ni suggests either an anthropogenic or meteoritic source. These spherules were probably ice-rafted into the central Arctic Ocean, where they are found in sediments of Holocene age and back to at least 780 ka, eliminating an anthropogenic source. Because Zn is too volatile to survive entry of a meteor through the earth’s atmosphere, these spherules were probably formed during impact of an Fe-Ni meteor in an area of abundant Zn, perhaps the Zn rich Paleozoic carbonates of the Queen Elizabeth Islands. Examination of the ejecta and sediments filling the 22 Ma Haughton Astrobleme impact site on Devon Island, a carbonate terrain, revealed few magnetite spherules. None of these were pitted or contained Ni, but a few percent of ZnO were found in three spherules. Thus, the origin of these magnetite spherules remains unknown. The unique appearance and geochemistry of these spherules are useful in tracing Arctic Ocean ice-rafted detritus to its source.
LikeLike
Well, that too is another curious piece we can add to the puzzle.
Of course, we’ve got a lot more chewing to do before any definite conclusions can be made.
Still… the implications at this time are enormously interesting, to say the least. Thanks!
LikeLike
Demitra,
I read your comments carefully, to understand what you’re saying. At one point, you’ve said:
“read my comment to Joseph and what i think about elaborate and convoluted explanations when simple and everyday wording is more practical to the interested layman.”
From what you’ve said here, I feel I’m not seeing this idea being applied. Can you please help me understand how these are simple an not elaborate or convoluted when you suggest these ideas about Rahu and Ketu?
LikeLike
I suppose if a person has no astrological background they might find this hard to follow. And so I will simplify as much as I can.
…
Western Astrology calls them North and South Nodes and says they are the imaginary points where the Moon and Earth’s orbits intersect.
Indian Astrology calls them Rahu and Ketu and says they are real physical bodies orbiting out there.
What the two Astrological systems seem to agree on is that these are always exactly 180 degrees apart and they have to do with Karma in the natal chart.
IF these are only imaginary points of intersection as Western Astrology indicates, the only question I have now (and always have had) is how did anyone ever conclude (and rightly so) that these two points represent Karma in each persons astrological chart?
BUT…
IF these are indeed two real physical bodies in orbit (and assuming the earth is flat and unmoving as well) then the question I have now is how in the world do two natural orbiting bodies remain exactly 180 degrees apart, always and forever? No naturally orbiting bodies we’ve been told about are known to behave this way. What comes to mind at this point is that they might not be natural orbiting bodies but artificial ones which are connected, allowing them to remain always in perfect opposition to each other. It is at this point where the visual of two rabbit ears of an antennae, focused upon or balanced over the earth’s axis somehow, comes to mind.
What I didn’t say before, but implied, was this: As I considered the possibility that these might be real physical bodies (albeit, artificial ones) I was suddenly struck with a strong visual that the wheel of karma might actually be a literal thing that is orbiting up there — operating as an artificial construct above our heads and responsible for not only keeping score, but also keeping individual consciousness-es from exiting the matrix.
…
Hope this made more sense to you. If not, don’t hesitate to point out where I lost you and I will attempt to further clarify.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Demitra,
I’m not sure if this was a response to me or not. If it was, I think it’s rather obvious this is quite elaborate and convoluted, to borrow your phrase. 😦
LikeLike
Seriously? This was all too much for you to take in? You consider this point-by-point break down all too elaborate and convoluted for you? You can’t follow any of it??
You don’t understand the concept of two systems of astrology, each referring to the same astrological ‘happening’, just by different names?
You can’t wrap your head around the fact that while these astrological systems each have a different name for these ‘things’ they both agree they have something to do with karma?
Do you not understand what it means when something is 180 degrees apart?
Come on now. Who are you kidding?
Let me ask you, SG, how do you feel about science books and the convoluted and often nonsensical explanations THEY engage in?lol.. If you tell me that you have no problem understanding those, then I see that this was all an “exercise” to you. I hope you got yourself a good workout. I, myself, got a good one — the matter is all that much clearer to me now, thank you.
If on the other hand, you really are serious about understanding this (but I highly doubt it) then by all means jump in and p.a.r.t.i.c.i.p.a.t.e here — tell me what level of English you are at, and where exactly you couldn’t follow.
LikeLike
Good Stuff, I’ve been working on relating FE to astrological movements now for a few months as well. Astrology it turns out is based on a FE model! All readings are done from the perspective of the reader being at the center of a geocentric model. I wonder when/if astrologers can “go FE”? Question: How does the procession of the equinox of Plato’s Great Year work on a FE model? What makes astro stars go retrograde? Just asking. thanx.
LikeLike
Good question, but no answer for that one yet.
LikeLike
Sorry about that — I was focused solely on the question you asked about Plato’s Great Year when I responded above.
You’re right that Astrology is geocentric and astrologers ought to be able to make the leap. Time will tell.
As for the stars going retrograde: i’m not sure — i’d have to give it some thought as well.
LikeLike
Hey, I may have the answer for the retrograde question. It comes to me as a result of the clarification of the Sun’s movements (as per the discussion on the Night and Day….Orbiting Around the Sun page) https://aplanetruth.info/2016/08/11/night-and-day-should-flip-every-six-months-if-we-were-orbiting-around-the-sun/comment-page-1/#comment-7759
I believe all celestial bodies are doing exactly what the Sun is doing — they are COURSE CORRECTING as they move through their orbital paths. We call it RETROGRADE MOTION because it appears to as though they are slowing down and reversing for a period of time and during that time it has an overt astrological effect on us.
I expect the reason why we take notice of this activity with the distant stars and not our own Sun, is literally because of the distance and the time it takes for us to perceive it. The assumption I am making here is that our own Sun is performing this retrograde motion in the sky every single day as well but because it is so close to us, and the time lapse so minimal due to its proximity, we don’t equate it’s daily course correction to the retrograde motions of other celestial bodies.
What do you think?
LikeLike
How would this worK?
LikeLike
The same way as the Sun travels through it’s own path.
LikeLike
jwlpeace,
in regards to your interest in understanding retrogrades, this video gives some insight that puts it into FE perspective. You’ll have to jump ahead to just before the 1hr 40m spot to view the animation.
LikeLike
I see you’ve provided a new video.
So how do the motions shown around 1hr 40min work (what would cause all these “things” visible to us to portray such movements)? If this is just a video, isn’t that just a type of CGI in motion?
BTW, is this supposed to have multiple “orbital” paths on opposite sides?
LikeLike
Yes, I have posted another video — so very astute of you to have noticed — but you aren’t nearly as shrewd about the fact that your sarcastic tone and the irrelevance of your questions, magnifies your true disdain for the subject of FE. Your approach is that of a classic troll. None-the-less, whether a troll with an agenda, or just a plain fool, you need guidance, but not in the way you think.
1- First, address this subject with a humble curiosity — remember, conspiracies so extraordinary are a rarity.
2- Be utterly respectful towards those you believe might have the answers to your questions — take some time to gladly chew on the small bites pro-offered. Remember, no one owes you anything …AND… other people’s conclusions can never, ever be as persuasive as the one’s we arrive at from our own due diligence.
3- Express gratitude for the time and effort you ARE given — people are more likely to help you again in the future if they like the way you treat them. For the record, I don’t like the way you speak to me, hence the response you are getting from me now — see how that works? Just because you don’t openly insult me doesn’t mean I haven’t picked up on your prevailing negative vibe.
4- Finally, and maybe more importantly, if you refuse to open your mind to possibilities beyond your comfort zone your paltry efforts will yield you nothing in the end. And resorting to blaming others for not explaining things to your personal satisfaction is just a silly game you play with yourself. Grow up, only a two year old spits out food and demands candy.
If you will not humble yourself to a regardful investigation of this subject you are wasting your time with the whole matter. Assuming, of course, that the whole purpose of your presence within these blog pages is NOT intentionally to be an energetic parasite whose sole aim it is to annoy and interfere in other people’s overall FE research.
LikeLike
You must have more finely tuned sarcasm sensors that I do; those were all basic questions and observations.
I can, however, sense a bit of tension in the 1st paragraph of your reply (actually it’s quite obvious). 😦
For the record, I’ve tried more than once to give you a chance to support your prior claims on things we see in the sky (and open my mind perhaps), but you routinely ignore them. Your choice, of course; but it leaves me and perhaps others wondering what could this mean???
Perhaps speculation on our part might be your goal, or maybe you just don’t care to explain some things.
TTFN.
LikeLike
thanx, i’ll check it out.
LikeLike
I see.
Well, I’ve wondered how the sun and moon circular and shifting back and forth movements occur, so how does the sun travel thru its path (BTW, I’m not quite sure the very complex motion of either these objects can simply be called a path)?
LikeLike
Watch this short video to see how electromagnetism can easily produce the visual effects we see of the Sun and Moon in motion:
LikeLike
No, I personally can’t see that this “easily” shows anything of significance to the question of earth and what we each observe in the sky.
So the question remains unanswered: How does this work (what is an explanation that fits human experience when we individually and collectively look up)?
I could pose some basic questions if that might help lead to some details, but unless there was some interest by someone to provide answers, I’m naturally reluctant to talk to any empty room.
Maybe this is a claim with a video, and without an explanation. 🙂
LikeLike