This is only the case if you believe the radiation of light from the Sun is isotropic. FE never makes this claim.
Also, there is a very easy observation anyone can make which demonstrates diffinitively that the Moon cannot be emanating light. Can you guess which this is?
Lastly, your question is an example of a false dichotomy fallacy. Those are not the only two options.
That seems like a dodge. What are these other options? Honestly, just one feasible one will do. Can we agree that these criteria are commonly met all at once:
1. The moon is full to an observer, and other observers within a certain range of latitudes. In other words, the entire face is illuminated. At other times, the illumination of the moon is crescent, gibbous, etc. An intuitive explanation would be that the full moon is being illuminated from "below" or the source of illumination is between the observer and the moon on a flat Earth, but I accept that other explanations are possible.
2. No light from the sun is otherwise visible, and no celestial body of similar size to the sun is visible that is partly illuminated or that appears to be projecting light (eg. visible beams in the sky).
3. At other longitudes observers are seeing an almost perfectly round sun (viewed through a solar filter if necessary) and are in daylight. It is doubtful that a cone sun would meet this criteria as some of the top or bottom would be obscured for some observers.
If I recall correctly, you believe that lunar phases demonstrate definitively that the moon cannot be emanating light. I find that a very odd statement for this site. Theories explaining this wouldn't be any more ridiculous than most others here. Someone could propose an army of highly-trained lunar glow worms and that wouldn't surprise me. I can only assume that whatever explanation you can come up with the full moon phenomenon will be more believable than that. Personally, I'm particularly fond of theories where there is at some form of evidence to back them up. Theories that are proposed simply because a model doesn't work are pretty unsatisfactory.
Hey Balls,
That, my friend, is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The claim was made that there are only two options. The burden of proof is with you making that claim. Until you demonstrate that these are the only two options, the claim is unjustified.
I have no obligation to prove you wrong, you must prove the claim correct.
You found my statement odd for this site? Perhaps your assumptions might benefit from a revisiting
. Especially if my statement surprises you but glow worms do not!
Why do you think the Sun is a cone? It is possible to achieve non-isotropic radiation without a geometrical cone. For example, the radiation distribution from an ordinary campfire is conic. This results from an interesting interference between radiative, conductive, and convective energy transport mechanisms caused by atmospheric pressure gradients resulting from the combustion process.
This is why you blow air underneath a fire to stoke it - that region is oxygen depleted and partially vacuated.
Anyway...
1. Sure Balls. But look. If I see an eclipse where I live and you don’t where you live, then the light must be reflected. It’s that simple. If it was emanated, we’d all see the same thing.
2. I have no idea what this sentence says. It sounds like you used google translate to take an English sentence into German, then into Russian, then Chinese, and finally Klingon before translating it back to English and posting it. But it’s probably just above my head.
3. Well, I guess I already answered this above.
I like talking to you Balls.