I believe that the earth's moon behaves in a similar way to Saturn's moon Enceladus.
But from Earth, using only telescopes, we can determine that our moon and Enceladus are differently composed.
I believe that the way the water gets to the moon is along Electra magnetic field lines...
I assume you mean "electromagnetic." Electra is either Carmen's last name, or the model of Lockheed airplane that Amelia Earhart flew. It doesn't help your credibility that you use technical terms incorrectly. Magnetic fields have no effect on water. We can determine this on Earth using simple experiments.
...and through sprites, and eddies.
Eddies
in what? You're talking about a fluid dynamics effect in an area of space in which there provably exists no fluid.
I also believe this is what causes the moon to emit light.
How would water on the Moon, regardless of how it may have gotten there, cause the Moon to emit light? Water doesn't emit light any more than rock does.
I think that when earth is between the moon and the sun the earth basically produces a comet like tail...
Wow! After starting another thread with a lengthy laundry list of phenomena you insisted we "couldn't" know, you fire off a whopper like this?
Okay, I'll bite. In all your lengthy observation and "common sense" analysis using your little backyard telescope, what data did you collect to confirm this hypothesis? Is this something you
observed, or something you
inferred from how you believe comet tails operate? If an inference, what mental exercise did you undertake to see how planets are different from comets? If a comet had a strong magnetic field (which they don't), how would that affect whether the solar wind were able to form a tail? If the comet's tail is composed of matter, how would the very much stronger gravity of, say, a planet affect whether the solar wind were able to "blow" matter away from it?
the charged hydrogen or MOON WATER...
No such thing as "Moon water," neither in chemistry nor in the Bible. Charged hydrogen is just a proton, as has been explained. And since the solar wind itself contains those protons, we don't need the Moon to be there in order to get a "shower" of protons.
...gently flows down to earth.
Hogwash. The Earth provably generates a magnetic field such that incoming protons, and anything those protons might conceivably somehow entrain, are deflected either around the Earth or into toroidal flow patterns along isomagnetic lines. They never get to Earth's atmosphere, except at the poles occasionally as the Northern lights. Can you think of an experiment to determine whether the
aurora borealis contains entrained "moon water?"
I am not the only person who thinks this is true. Some of the top lunar scientists also believe this.
You name only one person, then misrepresent his results badly. Sorry, you
are alone in thinking this. And in order for your belief to be true, several well-known and easily-testable properties of the physical world would have to be different than how we observe them to be. Therefore your theory fails most miserably.
This is one of my main reasons for my thinking that the record of the Apollo missions was faked. How could such smart people as the Apollo scientist miss a lunar water cycle!!
But they
didn't miss it! Where do you think your expert got the data to confirm his findings? This is how science works. We collected huge amounts of specimens and data during Apollo's operational phase. The analysis phase for significant scientific research is an ongoing process, and it's not uncommon for it to take decades to develop. Your expert is able to publish his findings only because Apollo was real and produced consistently and widely useful results. Do you really think that science can only form valid conclusions if those conclusions arise simultaneously with data collection? You know very little about how science produces the results that you depend on in your daily life.
Further your expert has never been to Enceladus or to Earth's moon. Yet you ask us to trust his findings (or at least your mangled interpretation of them) based in part on such things as remote-sensing techniques. Yet when I propose to use those same techniques, you tell me that I can't possibly know what I say I know, and that all of us appropriately educated people simply rely blindly on the unproven "book learning" you despised in your youth and continue to despise. Therefore your opinion on the value of science aligns closely with whether you think that science supports your religious beliefs. When others propose to know something that contradicts those beliefs, then scientists suddenly become a bunch of hapless know-nothings who fly in the face of "common sense."
LUNAR WATER CYCLE remember when he says glowing dust I beleive that he should say SNOW,and when he says Lobate scarps I think he should say Ice Glaciers.
How presumptuous of you to change the key words in your quoted expert's findings so that they match your theory instead of his! That's blatantly cheating. Please stop trying to shoehorn legitimate science into your predetermined beliefs. It only makes you look silly.
