We see the same face of the moon because, like the sun, the moon's light is also limited to a spotlight.
Are you saying what I think you are saying--that
the moon is self-luminous? Let me just establish that that's what you are saying, before going further with that.
And you seem to be saying the moon is a spotlight. (I must admit that on this forum is the
first time I've ever heard the word "spotlight" used as a purportedly scientific term!) Because, in this post below, you say it radiates in all directions:
That's because the moon is a sphere in Flat Earth Theory. It emits light in all directions.
Perhaps I am not understanding one or both of your full arguments.
...it is bent downwards towards the earth vis-a-vis the refraction properties of Snells Law.
I'm sorry Tom, but you may not use scientific principles in your arguments. You think science is a religion and is wrong. Your arguments are going to have to stand on their own, perhaps recruiting laws of nature from FE theory. You are not allowed to tarnish anything having to do with science. Besides, instead of invoking the fancy phrase "Snell's Law" clearly just to jazz-up your argument, you can just say "refraction". That is acceptable, shorter, and simpler.
As the moon passes over our vicinity it appears to wobble as we view it from a slightly different viewing angle.
Tom, oh shit. I've got to quit laughing. I don't know whether to reach out to you out of pity, make fun of you, continue laughing, or just shake my head in sadness. (later: I've quit laughing and chosen the latter.) This is the single-most retarded thing I've ever heard, I really do think so. You
cannot possibly believe what you just said. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I'm going to pretend you did.
First of all, you submitted a photo to me as evidence. You can't do that Tom, not until
you accept photos as evidence. Be consistent.
But OK I'll let this one slide, mainly because I've seen it before and have never had a problem with it. The animation you linked to is over the course of a full lunar cycle (almost a month). If you don't believe me, the dates are marked on each frame--every frame of the very thing
you presented to
me as evidence. The wobble takes nearly a month to complete, it doesn't happen "as the moon passes over our vicinity". In your model, the moon "passes over our vicinity" once a day.
Furthermore, according to FE theory, the moon is something like 35 miles up. Tom Theory says it is approx 5,000 or 10,000, I don't recall which. Let's say 10,000 to be generous. I think you believe the Earth is something like 5,000 miles in diameter. (Please correct me--I am guessing but I don't need to be accurate on your beliefs on these points, because it is OK within of an magnitude.) Such a slight wobble might accomodate a distance of
few miles in observation location or lunar rotation--but a variance of 2,000 miles would produce a
substantially different view. (Base of 20% height!.) There is not a single photo of the moon--from any location on Earth or time--that shows even remotely that much variance in the face pointing us. In fact, all locations show the same variation--the animation you sent of lunar libration.
And presumably, the moon travels more than 2,000 miles as it circles the earth every day in it's flat little journey somehow suspended above the earth.
You might say something about "Snell's law" (which seems to be some kind of magic elixir for your, as it is invoked with little explanation as to why, whenever you can't think of a good argument--that, and "Rowbotham"--You, Snell, and Rowbotham need to have an imaginary party together). And yet, if you search for photos from random people (e.g. on Flicker), you will see the same eclipse at the same GMT, but in vastly different places in the sky and local times from around the world. Maine may see it close to the horizon at 4:00 am, while Hawaii sees it directly above at midnight (same GMT...I don't know offhand what timezone Hawaii is in). And trust me, as a photo buff I see photos of every major eclipse solar and lunar, taken from all over the world where it was visible. No, actually don't trust me, investigate for yourself (but turn your brain on first). It will shatter your "Snell's Law explains all the nonsense" myth.