Earthshine.

A while ago, I had the opportunity to observe Earthshine on the crescent moon. It started me thinking on how the FE model explains why the dark side of the Moon appears so dark. Around the time of a crescent Moon, the reflected light from the landmasses, oceans and clouds on most of the day-side part of the planet would be shining on the Moon, and you would expect such a huge area to outshine a small 50 km wide ball of a sun.

Have you considered the possible involvement of the Shadow Object?

Have you considered the possible involvement of the Shadow Object?

As it's reportedly between the Sun and Moon, not the Earth and Moon, no, I haven't.

Read over the FAQ. There are other theories that account for it.

Read over the FAQ. There are other theories that account for it.

All I see in the FAQ is the shadow object causing Lunar eclipses. The shadow cast on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is a different shape than the dark side of the Moon, and the brightness of the Earthshine varies depending on the phase of the Moon, suggesting that it's not a static object causing it.

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on December 18, 2008, 12:09:01 PM

Have you considered the possible involvement of the Shadow Object?

Where does Rowbotham mention the Shadow Object in ENAG?

He doesn't.

I am confused about the shadow object.  Is it responsible for the phases of the moon if FET?  The lunar eclipse?  Or earth shine?

The first of those I find highly unlikely unless the object was actually close to the moon and not the sun.

In fact, Rowbotham believes earthshine to be due to the fact that the moon is partly transparent, doesn't he?

Not really transparent, have luminous and half not.

Nevermind, I see what you are talking about.  Looks like he says both.

Rowbotham was not right in all of his explanations. It doesn't help he wrote in victorian english, either.

By testing them, of course. Or if it seems improbable, contradictory and untestable I reexamine the problem and forming a theory based on existing physics.

By testing them, of course. Or if it seems improbable, contradictory and untestable I reexamine the problem and forming a theory based on existing physics.

And where does existing physics account for the bendy light? Where are your test results?

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on December 22, 2008, 10:52:47 PM

By testing them, of course. Or if it seems improbable, contradictory and untestable I reexamine the problem and forming a theory based on existing physics.

And where does existing physics account for the bendy light? Where are your test results?

Or Rowbotham's misrepresentation of perspective?

Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 22, 2008, 11:26:25 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on December 22, 2008, 10:52:47 PM

By testing them, of course. Or if it seems improbable, contradictory and untestable I reexamine the problem and forming a theory based on existing physics.

And where does existing physics account for the bendy light? Where are your test results?

Or Rowbotham's misrepresentation of perspective?

And how does all this mesh with all the work Johnson did?  I am betting that Shenton and Johnson are rolling over in their graves right about now.