You seem to be asking to prove a negative. No explanation, as many have been offered, seems to satisfy your query.That's not much of scientific explanation I would have expected something with more substance rather then indignant arm waving. All I am asking is why you cannot see a perpendicular direct line of sight between the moon's illumination and the sun.
Absolutely not! I have not seen one explanation that can conclusively explain why. It is a simple torch and football analogy but nobody seems to be able to understand its simplicity.You seem to be asking to prove a negative. No explanation, as many have been offered, seems to satisfy your query.
Maybe someone will come along who can explain in a different way.
I looked at the NSA link you provided and there was nothing on there about how the moon is illuminated. It does mention the diameter of the sun being 864,000miles but this conflicts with the maths using the sizes of the umbra and penumbra produced by a solar eclipse. You can check the maths yourself from the dimensions given in my drawings.
Belief and facts are not necessarily in alignment, as seems to be the case here. Have you ever observed the Moon with a telescope or binoculars? If so, you would see what is clearly a spherical object.I'm not implying anything! Explain to me why the moon's illumination does not appear to show that it a sphere?
Do you actually know what cognitive dissonance is?
With respect you do not like having your belief system challenged by evidence.
Seems you are the only one in this conversation that believes your opinion. No discussion nor presentation of facts/science seems to meet your standards, so I shall withdraw from this discussion.I ask you the same question - have you ever wondered why the reflected light does not obey the laws of optics.?
There is a definite conflict here that observation suggests it is a sphere but its physical properties suggest that it isn't.
Would you like to comment on the image I sent showing lighting on spheres? Surely you must have an opinion about the image!
With respect to your qualifications and age, I'm afraid that observation and maths have to trump them. You may see this as arrogance but I cannot help what I observe and mathematical outcomes. However I do accept what you say about the insignificance of starlight affecting the moon's illumination.As a scientist (B.Sc.) with any number of granted patents (which require scrutiny by scientists at the Patent Office) and as someone who has had an interest in astronomy and cosmology for about 60 years (yes, 60), I cannot agree more with COLGeek.
"Nothing but the Sun and some reflected light from Earth."
Of course, there is absolutely minimal illumination from stars, but I include this only in the interests of scientific completeness. Illumination decreases according to the Inverse Square Law. As distance increases by x, illumination decreases x squared. If the distance of the stars is millions of times further than the Sun-Earth distance (1 AU = Astronomical Unit), the illuminations are millions times millions of times less than Solar illumination.
This is proved by the fact that the illumination of the 'dark' side of the Moon by other stars is comparatively nil. Pedants may wish to consider illumination by interstellar dust. Same refutation applies.
*Quick conversion of light years to AU: 1 light year = 63241.07709 AU
Strictly the nearest star (other than the Sun) is approximately 1/4 million AU away.
Conclusion. My opinion is that intelligent people have spent far more time on this subject that it deserves.