I think the only flat earth answer you are ever going to get is "look it up in the wiki or the faq."
Was this "shadow object" one of Rowbotham's inventions or what was the original source for the "shadow object" in relation to the
"lunar eclipse " ?
This post ended up far long, be warned.The Rowbotham's material on the lunar eclipse is too long to present here, you can read it in:
Some quotes might be of interest.
Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?
Followed by many cases of "selenelions" - too many to quote here. Then he tries to dismiss
refraction with
The only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon is the refraction caused by the earth's atmosphere. This, at first sight, is a plausible and fairly satisfactory solution; but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate; and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment.
which consider quite fallacious.
So he comes to the conclusion that:
From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.
1st. A reflector is a plane or concave surface, which gives off or returns what it receives:--
If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.
If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed, cold will be reflected.
If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.
If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.
My bolding.What he completely fails to consider is that
moonlight is almost exactly the same colour as sunlight, just a little more reddish. I could give comparative spectra, but here is a photo taken under the light of a near full moon. Moonlight certainly has almost the same spectrum as sunlight! Have a look at this:
Full Moon Photo Yes, it's a bit grainy and not that sharp, but it was taken
hand-held at 2 sec, f 2.8 with a ISO rating of 10,000!. The little bright things in the sky are
stars, but the colours are pretty much like sunlight - because moonlight is definitely just sunlight reflected of a big dusty object. I took the photo of our car and caravan in Karijini National Park in Western Australia.
The moon's not reflecting heat is simply that direct sunlight at noon can have a brightness 120,000 lux whereas full Moon on a clear night has a brightness of about 0.25 lux. (From:
Wikipedia, Daylight.He then goes on about the perceived differences in qualities on sunlight and moonlight, but you need to accept 19th century superstitions to accept what he says.
He quotes
In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.
which, sceptic that I am, I find quite impossible to accept.
All this culminates in
We have seen that, during a lunar eclipse, the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something; that this "something" is a definite mass, because it has a distinct and circular outline, as seen during its first and last contact with the moon. As a solar eclipse occurs from the moon passing before the sun, so, from the evidence above collected, it is evident that a lunar eclipse arises from a similar cause--a body semi-transparent and well-defined passing
Rowbotham argues for a "the moon's
self-luminous surface is covered by a
semi-transparent something" quite different from "the Wiki" explanation.
But you need to read this for yourself to see that Rowbotham's ideas are so coloured by 19th century half-truths and superstitions.
A lot has been learnt about these things in the intervening 150 years or so.