Moon phases

From the page about the Moons phases in Zetetic Astronomy: Earth not a globe, the first sentence reads:

IT has been shown that the moon is not a reflector of the sun's light, but is self-luminous.

My question then would be how exactly has this been shown?

The same question applies equally to the various other chapters which start off in the same way.

You can't just say 'it has been shown' or 'it has been proven' without explaining how.

In the case of the Moon for example what evidence did Mr Rowbotham have which indicated that the common and long accepted explanation based on observations that the Moon shines from reflected sunlight is wrong.

We would then need to have an evidenced method and not just a speculated method about how the Moon generates its own light as Rowbotham claims.

In the case of the Moon for example what evidence did Mr Rowbotham have which indicated that the common and long accepted explanation based on observations that the Moon shines from reflected sunlight is wrong.

I don't think theories exist to disprove things.

Why on the "self-luminous Moon" those ridges and craters cast shadows in the direction opposite from Sun?

I don't think theories exist to disprove things.

Disprove what?  Have you ever looked through a telescope at the Moon?  If so based on what you see what do you think is more likely..  The Moon is self-luminous or the Moon is illuminated by reflected Sunlight?

For example consider the age old experiment.  You stand in the middle of a darkened room with a spotlight to one side. You hold out a smooth ball at arms length in front of you and then rotate yourself through 360 degrees keeping the ball at arms length.  If you stand facing the spotlight the illuminated half of the ball is facing away from you simulating 'new' Moon.  You rotate anticlockwise  through 90 degrees and now the ball looks like a first quarter Moon.  Rotate through another 90 degrees and you now see the illuminated half of the ball fully simulating 'full' Moon.  The spotlight is now behind you.  Rotate through another 90 degrees and now you see a 'last' quarter ball.  Finally you rotate back through the final 90 degrees to your starting point and the ball is 'new' again.

The ball is only illuminated by the spotlight (which simulates Sun in this experiment) and the reflected light off its surface matches the phases of the Moon that we see perfectly. Not only that but the same part of the ball surface has remained facing us in the same way that the same part of the Moons surface is always facing Earth. I don't think anyone can deny that we have shown convincingly that the phases of the Moon are caused by reflected Sunlight and not by self-lumination. And also that the Moons rotation period on its axis is equal to its orbital period around the Earth.  No electromagnetic acceleration needed.

With this in mind, how does Rowbotham think it has been shown that the Moon is not a reflector of light?

 

From the page about the Moons phases in Zetetic Astronomy: Earth not a globe, the first sentence reads:

Quote

IT has been shown that the moon is not a reflector of the sun's light, but is self-luminous.

My question then would be how exactly has this been shown?

The same question applies equally to the various other chapters which start off in the same way.

You can't just say 'it has been shown' or 'it has been proven' without explaining how.

In the case of the Moon for example what evidence did Mr Rowbotham have which indicated that the common and long accepted explanation based on observations that the Moon shines from reflected sunlight is wrong.

We would then need to have an evidenced method and not just a speculated method about how the Moon generates its own light as Rowbotham claims.

Moon shrimp.  But then how do we know that since we have supposedly never been there?

Just to re-iterate...  Rowbotham said 'It has been shown...'   Moon shrimps is an attractive idea indeed but I don't think they have ever been 'shown' to exist.

Just thought i'd add : the libaray is constantly  getting new books and getting rid of old ones, so it's possible that their was some stuff published that has been swept aside. Although it seems kindof funny if there is indeed no reference to what he's talking about.