[Ajaycee]

I've read through the boards and can't find this topic with any refutation so I hope a little resurrection is in order.

If moonlight is reflected sunlight, the models for moonlight don't work for spherical-earth or flat-earth models.

Spherical Earth:
For a full moon; If the moon is held to be on the opposite side of earth from the sun, would that not create a lunar eclipse ?
For a full moon; If the moon is held to be on the same side of earth as the sun, would that not simply be a solar eclipse ?
For a full moon; If the moon is above/below the line of sight would the moon not have a dark edge below/above ?

Bendy light around a spherical object, depending on the surface, might bring the light to a focal point or scatter it as a flare; We see neither.

Conclusion:
The moon is a light source.

Thoughts please - sensible answers only.

[Tom Bishop]

Modern FET models hold that moonlight is reflected from the sun.

A solar eclipse is created when the moon aligns with the sun and the observer, and only occurs for a strip of land on the earth's surface at a time.

A lunar eclipse occurs for everyone, when a satellite of the sun called the Shadow Object casts a shadow on the moon, obscuring it. This Shadow Object is an undocumented planet circling closely to the sun. It is undocumented because it circles so close to the sun as to only appear in the "day" side of the earth and, therefore, blighted by the sun's brightness, just like all other celestial objects near the sun during the day.

[Ajaycee]

Thanks Tom.

I'm really quite cool with the idea of the moon being a source of light; The sun is light source, I don't think the moon being so is any stretch of the imagination.

However, I do have some difficulty accepting an invisible anti-moon that blocks moonlight to cause a lunar eclipse.  Is there anything that supports the anti-moon theory ?

[Tom Bishop]

The Shadow Object is a body which intersects the light between the sun and the moon, and is invisible because it is a satellite of the sun and is always on the day side of the earth. Read through my post again.

It is supported by direct observation. During a Lunar Eclipse it is observed that a shadow of a body is being cast upon the moon. The theory that the body is coming between the observer and the moon is disproven by high resolution and high contrast images showing the unbroken outline of the moon, and unbroken background stars, all throughout the Lunar Eclipse event. Therefore, the shadow is coming from a body between the sun and the moon, not between the observer and the moon. The matter has been investigated to some depth on the .org site to support the sun-as-a-light-source model.

[Ajaycee]

OK Tom, Thanks.

I can't speak to your conclusions, I've not come across the photographs you refer to.

[Rama Set]

The Shadow Object is a body which intersects the light between the sun and the moon, and is invisible because it is a satellite of the sun and is always on the day side of the earth. Read through my post again.

It is supported by direct observation. During a Lunar Eclipse it is observed that a shadow of a body is being cast upon the moon. The theory that the body is coming between the observer and the moon is disproven by high resolution and high contrast images showing the unbroken outline of the moon, and unbroken background stars, all throughout the Lunar Eclipse event. Therefore, the shadow is coming from a body between the sun and the moon, not between the observer and the moon. The matter has been investigated to some depth on the .org site to support the sun-as-a-light-source model.

You are claiming to have directly observed the shadow object even though it is invisible?  Choose your answer carefully because I am liable to throw it in your face in the Earth's Rotation thread.

[Tom Bishop]

The Shadow Object is a body which intersects the light between the sun and the moon, and is invisible because it is a satellite of the sun and is always on the day side of the earth. Read through my post again.

It is supported by direct observation. During a Lunar Eclipse it is observed that a shadow of a body is being cast upon the moon. The theory that the body is coming between the observer and the moon is disproven by high resolution and high contrast images showing the unbroken outline of the moon, and unbroken background stars, all throughout the Lunar Eclipse event. Therefore, the shadow is coming from a body between the sun and the moon, not between the observer and the moon. The matter has been investigated to some depth on the .org site to support the sun-as-a-light-source model.

You are claiming to have directly observed the shadow object even though it is invisible?  Choose your answer carefully because I am liable to throw it in your face in the Earth's Rotation thread.

I was speaking in reference to the theory the Op brought up that the shadow object (or Anti-Moon) intersects the path of light between the observer and the moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. There is observational evidence which says otherwise. There are pictures and video which suggest that it is a shadow cast upon the moon from another source.

[Gulliver]

The Shadow Object is a body which intersects the light between the sun and the moon, and is invisible because it is a satellite of the sun and is always on the day side of the earth. Read through my post again.

It is supported by direct observation. During a Lunar Eclipse it is observed that a shadow of a body is being cast upon the moon. The theory that the body is coming between the observer and the moon is disproven by high resolution and high contrast images showing the unbroken outline of the moon, and unbroken background stars, all throughout the Lunar Eclipse event. Therefore, the shadow is coming from a body between the sun and the moon, not between the observer and the moon. The matter has been investigated to some depth on the .org site to support the sun-as-a-light-source model.

You are claiming to have directly observed the shadow object even though it is invisible?  Choose your answer carefully because I am liable to throw it in your face in the Earth's Rotation thread.

I was speaking in reference to the theory the Op brought up that the shadow object (or Anti-Moon) intersects the path of light between the observer and the moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. There is observational evidence which says otherwise. There are pictures and video which suggest that it is a shadow cast upon the moon from another source.

So you have no direct observation. Noted (and not surprised). Please do feel free to present any direct, verifiable evidence in any thread at any time.

[Rama Set]

The Shadow Object is a body which intersects the light between the sun and the moon, and is invisible because it is a satellite of the sun and is always on the day side of the earth. Read through my post again.

It is supported by direct observation. During a Lunar Eclipse it is observed that a shadow of a body is being cast upon the moon. The theory that the body is coming between the observer and the moon is disproven by high resolution and high contrast images showing the unbroken outline of the moon, and unbroken background stars, all throughout the Lunar Eclipse event. Therefore, the shadow is coming from a body between the sun and the moon, not between the observer and the moon. The matter has been investigated to some depth on the .org site to support the sun-as-a-light-source model.

You are claiming to have directly observed the shadow object even though it is invisible?  Choose your answer carefully because I am liable to throw it in your face in the Earth's Rotation thread.

I was speaking in reference to the theory the Op brought up that the shadow object (or Anti-Moon) intersects the path of light between the observer and the moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. There is observational evidence which says otherwise. There are pictures and video which suggest that it is a shadow cast upon the moon from another source.

So you haven't directly observed the shadow object.  Got it.

[Ghost of V]

The shadow object is easily observable on clear nights. You'll see a blotch of stars missing in a circle shape in the night sky.

See for yourself.

[Rama Set]

The shadow object is easily observable on clear nights. You'll see a blotch of stars missing in a circle shape in the night sky.

See for yourself.

I have not seen it in 36 years of life and I like looking at the sky.  No astronomers have seen it in hundreds of years of stargazing either.  Maybe you can provide coordinates because your opinion of what is easily observable is drastically different than say, the dictionaries would be.

[Gulliver]

The shadow object is easily observable on clear nights. You'll see a blotch of stars missing in a circle shape in the night sky.

See for yourself.

Since you've made your outlandish claim again in this thread, I'll renew my challenge. Please provide evidence (or a citation) for your claim.

[Lemmiwinks]

The shadow object is easily observable on clear nights. You'll see a blotch of stars missing in a circle shape in the night sky.

See for yourself.

Since you've made your outlandish claim again in this thread, I'll renew my challenge. Please provide evidence (or a citation) for your claim.

The whole, you need to provide proof thing because no one else has seen it doesnt work so well with Vaux, they will just personally insult you and disappear.

[Tom Bishop]

So you haven't directly observed the shadow object.  Got it.

Since the phases of the moon always follow the general direction of the sun, the Shadow Object would be in a straight line path between the Sun and the Moon. A lot of the logic used for the Shadow Object in FET is the same logic used in RET.

- The Shadow Object is an object in space
- The shadow originates from a body between the sun and moon, not the moon and observer
- The Shadow Object is a planet which revolves around the sun
- The plane of rotation is probably not perfectly aligned with the moon, as the eclipses are not daily
- The Lunar Eclipse occur periodically when the Sun, Shadow Object and Moon perfectly align

The main difference between FET and RET is that RET theorists believe that the Shadow Object is the Earth.

[Rama Set]

Since the phases of the moon always follow the general direction of the sun, the Shadow Object would be in a straight line path between the Sun and the Moon. A lot of the logic used for the Shadow Object in FET is the same logic used in RET.

- The Shadow Object is an object in space
- The shadow originates from a body between the sun and moon, not the moon and observer
- The Shadow Object is a planet which revolves around the sun
- The plane of rotation is probably not perfectly aligned with the moon, as the eclipses are not daily
- The Lunar Eclipse occur periodically when the Sun, Shadow Object and Moon perfectly align

The main difference between FET and RET is that RET theorists believe that the Shadow Object is the Earth.

So you haven't directly observed the shadow object.  Got it.

[model 29]

I've read through the boards and can't find this topic with any refutation so I hope a little resurrection is in order.

If moonlight is reflected sunlight, the models for moonlight don't work for spherical-earth or flat-earth models.

Spherical Earth:
For a full moon; If the moon is held to be on the opposite side of earth from the sun, would that not create a lunar eclipse ?

When it's orbital plane is lined up with the sun and Earth.

For a full moon; If the moon is held to be on the same side of earth as the sun, would that not simply be a solar eclipse ?

Again when it's orbital plane is lined up with the sun and Earth.  This also wouldn't be a full moon.

For a full moon; If the moon is above/below the line of sight would the moon not have a dark edge below/above ?

If the angle is enough, no, but we do end up with partial eclipses if it's not enough.

Bendy light around a spherical object, depending on the surface, might bring the light to a focal point or scatter it as a flare; We see neither.

Conclusion:
The moon is a light source.

Do you have an explanation about the illuminated side always facing the sun?

[Tintagel]

I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers).  RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees.  I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon.  There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all. 

To this end, I agree that the moon is a source of light in its own right.  The nature of this light, and why its cycles seem to follow its position in the sky relative to the sun (but as we see, not always as predicted) I do not know, but I can tell you that based upon this, and several other observations of the moon phases and sun's position not making sense, that  it is the situation that makes the most sense to me.

[Rama Set]

I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers).  RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees.  I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon.  There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all. 

To this end, I agree that the moon is a source of light in its own right.  The nature of this light, and why its cycles seem to follow its position in the sky relative to the sun (but as we see, not always as predicted) I do not know, but I can tell you that based upon this, and several other observations of the moon phases and sun's position not making sense, that  it is the situation that makes the most sense to me.

A full moon occurs when the ecliptic longitude of the sun and moon are 180 degrees from one another, but their ecliptic latitude can vary, so what you saw was not any sort of violation of the model. 

[markjo]

I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers).  RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees.  I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon.  There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all. 

Just out of curiosity, are you sure that it was it the actual day of the full moon?  To me, at least, the moon's apparent fullness on the the day before, the day of and the day after the full moon all look pretty much the same.

[Gulliver]

I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers).  RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees.  I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon.  There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all. 

Just out of curiosity, are you sure that it was it the actual day of the full moon?  To me, at least, the moon's apparent fullness on the the day before, the day of and the day after the full moon all look pretty much the same.

Actually Tintagel already noted that his observation was the day after that full moon.

Also, I've repeatedly pointed out the straw man that FEers sometimes use that the moon orbits in a circle, ignoring Kepler's laws of planetary motion. They've been making that obvious mistake since EnaG.