Phases of the moon

So, what causes the moon to change phases? I have scanned the FAQ and it says nothing about this.

I believe there's a third natural "satellite" (term used very loosely) which does not emit light. Its rotation is such that it passes in a regular, monthly pattern in front of the moon, and periodically the Sun too (causing solar eclipses).

What makes you think that Dogplatter?

What makes you think that Dogplatter?

Seems like a reasonable explanation of lunar phases and solar eclipses. If the Sun and the Moon can rotate using Earth's magnetism, why can't other, non-light-emitting objects?

Quote from: "socialaztec"

What makes you think that Dogplatter?

Seems like a reasonable explanation of lunar phases and solar eclipses. If the Sun and the Moon can rotate using Earth's magnetism, why can't other, non-light-emitting objects?

So, does it absord the sun's light then?

So, does it absord the sun's light then?

No, why would it?

Quote from: "WisconsinAmmo"

So, does it absord the sun's light then?

No, why would it?

Because it would appear in the sky, besides as a shadow some times.

A more reasonable explanation is the RE model.

If it was constantly absorbing the Sun's light it would heat up and eventually break up.

I believe there's a third natural "satellite" (term used very loosely) which does not emit light. Its rotation is such that it passes in a regular, monthly pattern in front of the moon, and periodically the Sun too (causing solar eclipses).

So... this 'third object' goes barely faster than the moon... miraculously causing a shadow, through which you can STILL see the moon's surface... then, all at once... zooms around the entire orbit in only a few days to start it's slow process of making lunar phases again.

Why? Why would it do this? Love for the moon?

I wouldn't bring this up on a job interview, if I were you.

Wouldn't work dogplatter.

If your "Invisible body" was the cause of solar eclipses, it would mean that a solar eclipse could occur when the moon is anywhere in the sky.  

But that's not the case.

Solar eclipses only occur when the moon is directlly infront of the sun.  In the nights leading up to a solar eclipse, you can actually watch the moon move closer to the sun, and if you have the right filters, you can see the moon just before it blocks the sun out.  I'm sure you could modify your hypothesis to include this, but it seems like you are making it uneccesarally complex.

At the very least, I think we should be able to agree that the moon is the cause of a solar eclipse.  This doesn't seem to violate any major principle in FE.

Now as to the causes of the moons phases:
Go outside on a day when both the moon and the sun are in the sky, you can see that the illuminated section of the moon is always pointing towards the sun.  Not some of the time, always.

This is the strongest evidence that the sun is illuminating the moon, it makes your invisible body completelly uneccesary.  Of course, for the moon to be illuminated in the fashion that is iss observed, it would have to be a sphere.  I have already posted my evidence for that, and you never did really give an adequate response. . .

Oh, one more thing.

Your invisible body would have to be semi-trasparent.  As a good telescope can still resolve features on the dark section of the moon.

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

Quote from: "WisconsinAmmo"

So, does it absord the sun's light then?

No, why would it?

Because it would appear in the sky, besides as a shadow some times.

No it wouldn't. The only way things can be seen is when light is reflected from them or they emit light. Think about the FE layout for a sec and then try and figure out how a non-light emitting Sun-like object could possibly be seen.

No it wouldn't. The only way things can be seen is when light is reflected from them or they emit light. Think about the FE layout for a sec and then try and figure out how a non-light emitting Sun-like object could possibly be seen.

Light from the Sun or Moon reflecting onto the object and towards Earth.

OR

Light from the Sun / Moon relecting off the Earth (it does happen folks), onto the object, and reflecting back onto the Earth again.

Simple.

Light from the Sun or Moon reflecting onto the object and towards Earth.

OR

Light from the Sun / Moon relecting off the Earth (it does happen folks), onto the object, and reflecting back onto the Earth again.

Simple.

Think again about the arrangement of the Sun, Moon, and third object - all discs parallel to eachother and facing the Earth. Care to tell me how the Sun's light will reflect onto the third object?

As for light reflecting off the Earth and onto the object, I contend that after 2 reflections the light won't be strong enough to make the object visible, especially against the even brighter light directly from the Sun.

Quote from: "DrPoodle"

Light from the Sun or Moon reflecting onto the object and towards Earth.

OR

Light from the Sun / Moon relecting off the Earth (it does happen folks), onto the object, and reflecting back onto the Earth again.

Simple.

Think again about the arrangement of the Sun, Moon, and third object - all discs parallel to eachother and facing the Earth. Care to tell me how the Sun's light will reflect onto the third object?

As for light reflecting off the Earth and onto the object, I contend that after 2 reflections the light won't be strong enough to make the object visible, especially against the even brighter light directly from the Sun.

But what would prevent sun light from reflecting off of a highly reflective surface, such as the Ice of the polar region, the ocean, or the wall and shining on to this disk in the night sky?

But even more apparent is that you can see stars beyond the moon in regions where this disk would have to be to partially cover the moon.  You should also see stars disappear along it's track at night even when it is not near the moon.  Such an object would have a path that  should be easy to calculate, given it's effect on the moon.

And since the tides are related to the Sun and moon's postitions, why does not this third similar object not affect them?

Quote from: "DrPoodle"

Light from the Sun or Moon reflecting onto the object and towards Earth.

OR

Light from the Sun / Moon relecting off the Earth (it does happen folks), onto the object, and reflecting back onto the Earth again.

Simple.

Think again about the arrangement of the Sun, Moon, and third object - all discs parallel to eachother and facing the Earth. Care to tell me how the Sun's light will reflect onto the third object?

As for light reflecting off the Earth and onto the object, I contend that after 2 reflections the light won't be strong enough to make the object visible, especially against the even brighter light directly from the Sun.

A distance of 9000 miles (3 x 3000 miles) will not affect the brightness or strength of the light by much at all. The amount is certainly not enough for the object not to be seen at all.