"The Wiki" explains "day and night" cycles in the well-known fashion as in
How do you explain day/night cycles and seasons?
Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth. The apparent effect of the sun rising and setting is usually explained as a perspective effect.
|  An animation of the day/night cycle in FET |
Now just as an example take the sun position as shown on the "The sun's orbit at equinox" circle, above the equator at long 180°. For a position on earth along longitude 0° to have darkness at midnight the sun 180° away must not be vidible, presumably due to the "finite transparancy of the air".
But in Rowbotham's explanation of the "Retrograde motion of the Planets" on pp 322. 323 we have this explanation:
STATIONS AND RETROGRADATION OF PLANETS
The planets are sometimes seen to move from east to west, sometimes from west to east, and sometimes to appear stationary, and it is contended that “the hypothesis of
the earth’s motion is the natural and easy explanation; and that it would be in vain to seek it from any other system.”
To those who have adopted the Newtonian theory the above language is quite natural; but when the very foundation of that system is proved to be erroneous, we must seek for the cause as it really exists in the heavens, regardless of every hypothesis and consequence. Careful observation has shown that the advance, apparent rest, and retrogradation of a planet is a simple mechanical result.
All the orbits are above the earth; and whenever a spectator stands in such a position that a planet is moving from right to left, he has only to wait until it reaches the end or part of its orbit nearest to him, when, as it turns to traverse the other side of the orbit, it will, for a time, pass in a direction to which the line of sight is a tangent.
A good illustration will be found in an elliptical or circular race-course. A person standing at some distance outside the course would see the horses come in from the right, and pass before him to the left; but on arriving at the extreme arc they would for a time pass in the direction of, or parallel to, his line of sight, and would, therefore, appear for a time not to progress, but on entering the other side of the course would appear to the spectator to move from. left to right, or in a contrary direction to that in which they first passed before him. The following diagram, fig. 99, will illustrate this.
FIG. 99.
Let S be the place of the spectator. It is evident that a body passing from A to P, would pass him from right to left; but during its passage from P to T it would seem not to move across the field of view. On arriving, however, at T, and passing on to B, it would be seen moving from left to right; but from B to A it would again appear to be almost stationary.
From
ZETETIC ASTRONOMY, ZETETIC AND THEORETIC DEFINED AND COMPARED.Now clearly, Rowbotham is saying that we can see the planets when they are at all positions around the 360° of their orbit, otherwise they could never show retrograde motion. So I have to wonder, "If we can see the planets when they are on the other "side" of the earth, why can't we see the sun, which is almost infinitely brighter than any planet?"
This explanation of "retrograde motion" differs markedly from the explanation in "the Wiki", so we have to ask
if Rowbotham is so wrong in this, what other parts of Rowbotham's writings are also simply incorrect.