[manicminer]

In order for the Moon to emit light of its own light it would have to be generating its own energy from within. There are two very good reasons why it can't do that. Firstly it is made entirely of rock and secondly it is far too small. The shadow patterns that we see from the craters, mountains and other features are exactly what we would expect to see if one assumes that the Moon is being illuminated by the Sun. 

When the Moon is at first quarter (90 degree angular elongation between the Sun and Moon as seen from Earth) the shadow detail is most pronounced along the terminator which also coincides with the central meridian of the visible disk.  As we edge from first quarter towards full Moon the shadow detail gradually lessens until they vanish completely on the night of full Moon.  At that point the Sun is shining directly down on the lunar surface as seen from Earth and hence there are no shadows visible. Apart from the merest suggestion at the very edge (limb) of the lunar disk. We would expect that as the Moons surface is curving away from the Sun.

As we go from full Moon towards last quarter and then new Moon again we see the shadows pointing in the opposite direction to what they were while the Moon was waxing. That of course is exactly what we would expect to see given that the Moons surface is being illuminated by the Sun.  The Moons spectrum is also identical to the solar spectrum.  The faintly glowing light on the dark part of the Moons disk that we see for a few nights after new Moon is called Earth shine. As the name implies, it is caused by light reflected off the Earth in the direction of the Moon.

I have been observing and image the Moon for about 40 years now through various telescopes and cameras so that is my evidence.   The simplest explanation for this is that the Sun is illuminating the Moons surface. The appearance and lengths of the shadows that I see is are caused by the changing angles between the Sun, Moon and Earth as the Moon orbits the Earth during the month.  That also explains very nicely the observed phase cycle.

I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone on here.  I am simply offering you my own evidence based on my own observations.  I leave the rest up to you.

[TomFoolery]

I suppose it would be possible for there to be street lamps on the moon, thus casting shadows.

But if you look at the shadows they all point to a single light, a great distance from the moon.
That light can either be hitting from the side, or straight above, or hitting from the other side, but the shadows always go the same way on any given day so it's not like local light.

I think this is why Mark Sargent has taken the stance that the sun, moon, and stars are projected upon [the dome], by an ultra high definition system, using super LED technology, and a combination of 2D and 3D imaging..


But I'm even having doubts about that being a workable model.

Even if the sun was a projection on the dome, and it was projected to be over behind Alaska for the correct position in the sky to be seen from Australia, it would still be projected onto the dome at a point that was closer to Alaska during the Australian Equinox Sunset.

So we'd have to basically say that it was being holographically projected at a much much lower level.

[QED]

In order for the Moon to emit light of its own light it would have to be generating its own energy from within. There are two very good reasons why it can't do that. Firstly it is made entirely of rock and secondly it is far too small. The shadow patterns that we see from the craters, mountains and other features are exactly what we would expect to see if one assumes that the Moon is being illuminated by the Sun. 

When the Moon is at first quarter (90 degree angular elongation between the Sun and Moon as seen from Earth) the shadow detail is most pronounced along the terminator which also coincides with the central meridian of the visible disk.  As we edge from first quarter towards full Moon the shadow detail gradually lessens until they vanish completely on the night of full Moon.  At that point the Sun is shining directly down on the lunar surface as seen from Earth and hence there are no shadows visible. Apart from the merest suggestion at the very edge (limb) of the lunar disk. We would expect that as the Moons surface is curving away from the Sun.

As we go from full Moon towards last quarter and then new Moon again we see the shadows pointing in the opposite direction to what they were while the Moon was waxing. That of course is exactly what we would expect to see given that the Moons surface is being illuminated by the Sun.  The Moons spectrum is also identical to the solar spectrum.  The faintly glowing light on the dark part of the Moons disk that we see for a few nights after new Moon is called Earth shine. As the name implies, it is caused by light reflected off the Earth in the direction of the Moon.

I have been observing and image the Moon for about 40 years now through various telescopes and cameras so that is my evidence.   The simplest explanation for this is that the Sun is illuminating the Moons surface. The appearance and lengths of the shadows that I see is are caused by the changing angles between the Sun, Moon and Earth as the Moon orbits the Earth during the month.  That also explains very nicely the observed phase cycle.

I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone on here.  I am simply offering you my own evidence based on my own observations.  I leave the rest up to you.

Your comments are reasonable, but are only consistent with the Moon not emitting light. None of them definitively prove the moon can’t.

The energy argument is most compelling, but there could be an energy source we have not yet identified.

There is a very simple observation one can make with the unaided eye which proves the Moon cannot be an emitter. I am still waiting for a REer to find it.

And I agree, you have always been fair with your statements as far as I have seen. Not all REers share this property.

[manicminer]

And I agree, you have always been fair with your statements as far as I have seen. Not all REers share this property.

I am also honest. I read all the views expressed and then compare them to my own real world experiences.  Many people on here make comments about astronomy but the nature of them tells me straight away that they have no actual experience of doing astronomy.  The example above about having street lamps on the Moon is one such example.  In order to detect a light with the energy output of a street lamp from the distance of the Moon would require one of the worlds largest telescopes and a very sensitive camera. And of course that begs the question of how did the street lights get there?!?

I have already stated all the evidence I need to do for this post so I shall step aside now and let others provide their contributions.

There is a very simple observation one can make with the unaided eye which proves the Moon cannot be an emitter. I am still waiting for a REer to find it.

Please PM me and describe this to me...  I would love to know what you think that is!

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Lunar phases are proof the moon does not produce it's own light. Whether you subscribe to the RE model or what is stated here in the FE wiki.

[QED]

Lunar phases are proof the moon does not produce it's own light. Whether you subscribe to the RE model or what is stated here in the FE wiki.

Precisely. You have my respect, sir.

Lunar eclipses would also suffice.

[Balls Dingo]

So we'd have to basically say that it was being holographically projected at a much much lower level.

And even that wouldn't work because people at different latitudes viewing the spherical holograph moon (I assume this is what you meant) simultaneously see the same features in the same places. For example, a crater near the edge will be near the edge for both (although it could be near the top or the bottom edge depending on the location of the observer). In other words, they wouldn't see the same "face" of the moon. That only works for a distant moon.

Actually, can we agree that:
1. Any shape projected onto any surface (flat or curved) can not appear circular to observers in Tokyo and Melbourne (or Warsaw and Johannesburg, etc) simultaneously at the distances proposed for the dome (thousands of kilometres rather than hundreds of thousands). One will always be an oval if the other is a circle.
2. If the same "face" of a spherical object/hologram appears to observers in Tokyo and Melbourne simultaneously, the object must be distant (hundreds of thousands of kilometres).