The ebb and flow of the light.

[Steve de Jonge]

I recently had cause to look up the definition of supernova, and can only conclude that it is just plain wrong.

 

I can understand early astronomers thinking that stars explode (there was literally nothing else to think) but once the existence of black holes was established, surely a rethink was required.

 

Take a step back, from what you think you know about cosmology, and have another look, considering this: The greater universe is littered with vast bright objects emitting eternal light and vast dark objects absorbing it - anyone with any imagination, at all, ought to wonder, "is this some sort of cycle?"

 

Stars are about implosion, not explosion, and have the perfect mechanism for releasing the heat energy generated. black holes, on the other hand, which must continue to generate heat right up to the moment of reaching maximum density, have no such mechanism and must, therefore, be considered explosive. Consider what a black hole is (all of the matter from a star's universe, all planets and debris reabsorbed, minus most of its light) and what it does (sits in space for billions of years harvesting light from every star it can see) and think what will happen when it has finally absorbed exactly, down to the last photon, the same amount of light that it emitted as a star.

 

Einstein hasn't helped here, by his assertion that - the equal and opposite reaction to a ten billion year implosion is a wormhole to Narnia; but surely, on regaining all its light, it comes up hard against the point of critical mass, and begins the two stage (emission/absorption) implosion phase of the cycle (yet again) with a 'Big Bang'? It's a solar system, not a series of random solar incidents.

 

Merry Christmas,

Steve de Jonge

[zapatos]

How many total photons does a star emit in its life and how many photons does a black hole absorb in a given amount of time? And finally, how long will it take a black hole to absorb the number of photons it emitted?

[Strange]

41 minutes ago, Steve de Jonge said:

I recently had cause to look up the definition of supernova, and can only conclude that it is just plain wrong.

There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings in your post. 

Quote

I can understand early astronomers thinking that stars explode (there was literally nothing else to think) but once the existence of black holes was established, surely a rethink was required.

Not sure how you define "recent" but the idea that stars explode dates back to about 1860, and was based on observational evidence (e.g. spectroscopy).

Quote

Take a step back, from what you think you know about cosmology, and have another look, considering this: The greater universe is littered with vast bright objects emitting eternal light and vast dark objects absorbing it - anyone with any imagination, at all, ought to wonder, "is this some sort of cycle?"

It is a cycle in the sense that black holes are (mainly) created by supernova explosions. But that's t. It is pretty much a one way street.

Quote

Stars are about implosion, not explosion, and have the perfect mechanism for releasing the heat energy generated. black holes, on the other hand, which must continue to generate heat right up to the moment of reaching maximum density, have no such mechanism and must, therefore, be considered explosive.

During their lifetime, stars are neither implosion nor explosion. They steadily "burn" hydrogen by fusion to create helium and, eventually, some heavier elements. That is a fairly stable process, until the star starts to run out of hydrogen. Then the energy from fusion is no longer enough to stop gravitational collapse. At that point, the star can implode and form a neutron star or a black hole, depending on the mass of the star. This is also an explosion, as a large part of the mass is blown away by the energy released. 

Black holes do not release energy or explode, unless they are really, really tiny. And, as far as we know, no such small black holes exist.

Quote

Consider what a black hole is (all of the matter from a star's universe, all planets and debris reabsorbed, minus most of its light) and what it does (sits in space for billions of years harvesting light from every star it can see) and think what will happen when it has finally absorbed exactly, down to the last photon, the same amount of light that it emitted as a star.

That is not what a black hole is. Most appear to be formed from the death of stars. The really supermassive ones may have been created by direct collapse of large clouds of gas, but we don't really know yet.

While it is is true that light will fall into a black hole and not escape, that is not from "every star they can see". Black holes are relatively small so the amount of light that falls into them will be minute, as a proportion of the light emitted by stars.

Most of the growth of black holes comes from matter that falls in. Typically from stars or clouds of gas that get too close.

A black hole can grow much larger than the star that formed it. Especially if it merges with another black hole, for example. There is, as far as we know, no limit to how large a black hole can get. So the answer to "what will happen" is ... nothing. It will just carry on absorbing any matter or light that gets too close.

Quote

Einstein hasn't helped here, by his assertion that - the equal and opposite reaction to a ten billion year implosion is a wormhole to Narnia

I am not aware that Einstein ever said anything about a wormhole to Narnia. Can you provide a reference?

Quote

; but surely, on regaining all its light, it comes up hard against the point of critical mass, and begins the two stage (emission/absorption) implosion phase of the cycle (yet again) with a 'Big Bang'? It's a solar system, not a series of random solar incidents.

No. It does not come up against any sort of critical mass. Nor does it explode to create a solar system (if that is what you are suggesting).

Quote

Merry Christmas,

Steve de Jonge

And to you.

 

!

Moderator Note

As you are not asking questions but making assertions (with no real evidence) I have to move this to Speculations. Please read the special rules associated with this part of the forum.

 

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Steve de Jonge said:

 

I recently had cause to look up the definition of supernova, and can only conclude that it is just plain wrong.

 

AFAIK supernova models matches observations pretty well. Since you have reason to believe that to be plain wrong, can you provide a reference?

[Sensei]

3 hours ago, Steve de Jonge said:

I recently had cause to look up the definition of supernova, and can only conclude that it is just plain wrong.

 

There is couple different types of supernovas. e.g.

Supernova explosion can be result of collapse. Star's core runs out of fuel which can readily fuse. Iron atom cannot fuse with other iron atom at low temperatures as it is highly endothermic reaction. Therefor outer layers of star are no longer pushed away by particles created by core during regular fusion, and they collapse toward core. During this stage particles of outer layers accelerate to significant velocities gaining kinetic energy (prior explosion super giant star can have hundred millions kilometers diameter). When they hit core, or other particles from outer layers, explosion of supernova begins..

Do you agree with this? If you disagree, with this type of supernova, explain with details.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Not sure how you define "recent" but the idea that stars explode dates back to about 1860, and was based on observational evidence (e.g. spectroscopy).

Kepler's Supernova was in 1604.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_Supernova

In 1572 there was supernova:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1572

In 1885 there was supernova in Andromeda galaxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1885A

 

 

 

Wikipedia article of SN 1572 reveals origin of name of supernova. Tycho Brahe on stellar map and in his book called it "nova stella" (new star).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_nova_stella

 

 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

Kepler's Supernova was in 1604.

But they didn’t know it was an explosion, then. 

[Steve de Jonge]

None of these supernovas occurred where there was prior human knowledge of a star. Indeed those most recently witnessed, in far away galaxies, have been attributed to 'white dwarfs colliding' because we are certain that no star was at their location prior to their sudden appearance.

The Reader's Digest Universal Dictionary: 'Implosion - A more or less violent collapse inward'. Only nuclear fission is as 'violent' as nuclear fusion, and a vast cloud of hydrogen atoms diminished to the dimensions of a black hole can best be described as a collapsed inwards.

If you aren't great at visualisation, do this on an actual sheet of regular office paper, placed horizontally before you. To the left draw a circle, as large as will fit. In the centre draw a coin sized circle, and to the right draw a small dot. Now, from left to right, label them a, b, c, and write under them Mass = 10X, Mass = X, and Mass = 10X (if you crave precision, write 'not to scale' in one of the corners). If you now imagine that b is our own Sun and a & c are stars, of ten times her mass, at different stages of development in the Milky Way - then what you have before you is absolute proof that stars do not die. Consider the comparative likelihood of the two possible explanations for the difference in volume/density between a & c, which started their lives, after the last Milky Way Big Bang, as identical clouds of gas; 1. a is inexplicably lagging billions of years behind c; or 2. c is on the verge of supernova and in a few hundred years (the blink of a cosmologist's eye) will be indistinguishable from a.

Now download a photograph of the full Moon, have a good look at it, and ask yourself - is that how a hemisphere, in a vacuum, reflects light from a single source? Consider the light (from directly behind the photographer) striking the Moon's edges; what should be little more than a glancing blow (if starlight was inclined to race aimlessly into space) actually results in a 180 degree reversal of its course, and the light from its edges reaches us with the intensity of light striking the Moon dead centre; the only feasible explanation for this is that starlight (direct or reflected) only goes where gravity beckons, and what we see of the Moon is not conventionally reflected light, but rather the overlap of the Earth/Moon gravitational umbilical and the Sun/Moon gravitational umbilical.

If two rays of reflected sunlight departed from points on Venus separated by one degree of arc (forget for a minute about the fact that they are already supposed to be diverging from the centre of the Sun itself and, for ease of understanding, imagine them striking Venus parallel) and one hit the earth dead centre, the second would miss the earth by 0.5 million miles, at Venus's closest point of approach, and 2.8 million miles at her furthest point; and yet the intensity remains constant whether she is 30 or 160 million miles from us.

If there were any truth in the assumption that our Sun radiates her light omnidirectionally; then less than one ten billionth of her energy would be used to nourish her only living offspring (work out the surface area of a sphere of 93 million miles radius and then divide it by the area of a circle of the Earth's diameter) can such inefficiency actually exist in nature, which is super-efficient in every other way? If you look at the Sun (with suitable eye protection of course) you can see, by her Moon-like two dimensional presentation, that we are not feeding on scraps that are diverging from a point 93 million miles away, but rather we are nourished by a concentrated beam; a flood fill of our gravitational umbilical. Sunlight is 'on demand' and the amount received is proportional to gravity & distance from the source; this is why Mars has cooled as the Sun has become denser, and we will cool as she becomes denser still. If she were leaking her light uncontrollably in all directions, how likely does it seem that she would shine for several billion years? Starlight is the life-blood of the universe, and it circulates ONLY through the conduit of gravitational umbilicals. If we could see light from the side, the night sky would look very different but make more sense, as we would be able to see that every star is connected to every other body in the greater universe by a duct of light. If starlight could escape gravity unassisted and proceed aimlessly into space, would a supernova not be little more than a flash?

So how long it takes, for a black hole to recover all of the light that it emitted during the 
discharge phase of its cycle, will depend upon its mass, the proximity of other bodies and their mass & density. In the simplest terms - at the instant of supernova a star has an abundance of light, which it then surrenders freely to anything that it shared a gravitational relationship with prior to exploding; then it pulls itself together into ball of ardent liquid and gradually cedes less and less light (as its density increases) until it ends up so dense that it yields no light whatsoever (although larger/denser black holes will still 'see' it). The gravity of the individual, loosely bonded, hydrogen atoms (or sub-atomic particles if you prefer) of the supernova is spent pulling the cloud into a sphere and attracts no light from elsewhere in the universe, then as the star gains density it will gradually start to harvest light from other less dense bodies, the rate increasing proportionally to its ever increasing density. At the instant prior to supernova a black hole will be gaining light at a rate identical to which it loses it in the equal and opposite reaction of the instant following supernova; the final dramatic rush to full light saturation acting as a detonator.

The notion that stars die is preposterous; if the light is eternal and the matter is indestructible it cannot be anything but a cycle.

 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Steve de Jonge said:

None of these supernovas occurred where there was prior human knowledge of a star. Indeed those most recently witnessed, in far away galaxies, have been attributed to 'white dwarfs colliding' because we are certain that no star was at their location prior to their sudden appearance.

The Reader's Digest Universal Dictionary: 'Implosion - A more or less violent collapse inward'. Only nuclear fission is as 'violent' as nuclear fusion, and a vast cloud of hydrogen atoms diminished to the dimensions of a black hole can best be described as a collapsed inwards.

If you aren't great at visualisation, do this on an actual sheet of regular office paper, placed horizontally before you. To the left draw a circle, as large as will fit. In the centre draw a coin sized circle, and to the right draw a small dot. Now, from left to right, label them a, b, c, and write under them Mass = 10X, Mass = X, and Mass = 10X (if you crave precision, write 'not to scale' in one of the corners). If you now imagine that b is our own Sun and a & c are stars, of ten times her mass, at different stages of development in the Milky Way - then what you have before you is absolute proof that stars do not die. Consider the comparative likelihood of the two possible explanations for the difference in volume/density between a & c, which started their lives, after the last Milky Way Big Bang, as identical clouds of gas; 1. a is inexplicably lagging billions of years behind c; or 2. c is on the verge of supernova and in a few hundred years (the blink of a cosmologist's eye) will be indistinguishable from a.

Now download a photograph of the full Moon, have a good look at it, and ask yourself - is that how a hemisphere, in a vacuum, reflects light from a single source? Consider the light (from directly behind the photographer) striking the Moon's edges; what should be little more than a glancing blow (if starlight was inclined to race aimlessly into space) actually results in a 180 degree reversal of its course, and the light from its edges reaches us with the intensity of light striking the Moon dead centre; the only feasible explanation for this is that starlight (direct or reflected) only goes where gravity beckons, and what we see of the Moon is not conventionally reflected light, but rather the overlap of the Earth/Moon gravitational umbilical and the Sun/Moon gravitational umbilical.

If two rays of reflected sunlight departed from points on Venus separated by one degree of arc (forget for a minute about the fact that they are already supposed to be diverging from the centre of the Sun itself and, for ease of understanding, imagine them striking Venus parallel) and one hit the earth dead centre, the second would miss the earth by 0.5 million miles, at Venus's closest point of approach, and 2.8 million miles at her furthest point; and yet the intensity remains constant whether she is 30 or 160 million miles from us.

If there were any truth in the assumption that our Sun radiates her light omnidirectionally; then less than one ten billionth of her energy would be used to nourish her only living offspring (work out the surface area of a sphere of 93 million miles radius and then divide it by the area of a circle of the Earth's diameter) can such inefficiency actually exist in nature, which is super-efficient in every other way? If you look at the Sun (with suitable eye protection of course) you can see, by her Moon-like two dimensional presentation, that we are not feeding on scraps that are diverging from a point 93 million miles away, but rather we are nourished by a concentrated beam; a flood fill of our gravitational umbilical. Sunlight is 'on demand' and the amount received is proportional to gravity & distance from the source; this is why Mars has cooled as the Sun has become denser, and we will cool as she becomes denser still. If she were leaking her light uncontrollably in all directions, how likely does it seem that she would shine for several billion years? Starlight is the life-blood of the universe, and it circulates ONLY through the conduit of gravitational umbilicals. If we could see light from the side, the night sky would look very different but make more sense, as we would be able to see that every star is connected to every other body in the greater universe by a duct of light. If starlight could escape gravity unassisted and proceed aimlessly into space, would a supernova not be little more than a flash?

So how long it takes, for a black hole to recover all of the light that it emitted during the 
discharge phase of its cycle, will depend upon its mass, the proximity of other bodies and their mass & density. In the simplest terms - at the instant of supernova a star has an abundance of light, which it then surrenders freely to anything that it shared a gravitational relationship with prior to exploding; then it pulls itself together into ball of ardent liquid and gradually cedes less and less light (as its density increases) until it ends up so dense that it yields no light whatsoever (although larger/denser black holes will still 'see' it). The gravity of the individual, loosely bonded, hydrogen atoms (or sub-atomic particles if you prefer) of the supernova is spent pulling the cloud into a sphere and attracts no light from elsewhere in the universe, then as the star gains density it will gradually start to harvest light from other less dense bodies, the rate increasing proportionally to its ever increasing density. At the instant prior to supernova a black hole will be gaining light at a rate identical to which it loses it in the equal and opposite reaction of the instant following supernova; the final dramatic rush to full light saturation acting as a detonator.

The notion that stars die is preposterous; if the light is eternal and the matter is indestructible it cannot be anything but a cycle.

 

This is too mad to be worthy of a serious response.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Steve de Jonge said:

None of these supernovas occurred where there was prior human knowledge of a star. Indeed those most recently witnessed, in far away galaxies, have been attributed to 'white dwarfs colliding' because we are certain that no star was at their location prior to their sudden appearance.

The Reader's Digest Universal Dictionary: 'Implosion - A more or less violent collapse inward'. Only nuclear fission is as 'violent' as nuclear fusion, and a vast cloud of hydrogen atoms diminished to the dimensions of a black hole can best be described as a collapsed inwards.

If you aren't great at visualisation, do this on an actual sheet of regular office paper, placed horizontally before you. To the left draw a circle, as large as will fit. In the centre draw a coin sized circle, and to the right draw a small dot. Now, from left to right, label them a, b, c, and write under them Mass = 10X, Mass = X, and Mass = 10X (if you crave precision, write 'not to scale' in one of the corners). If you now imagine that b is our own Sun and a & c are stars, of ten times her mass, at different stages of development in the Milky Way - then what you have before you is absolute proof that stars do not die. Consider the comparative likelihood of the two possible explanations for the difference in volume/density between a & c, which started their lives, after the last Milky Way Big Bang, as identical clouds of gas; 1. a is inexplicably lagging billions of years behind c; or 2. c is on the verge of supernova and in a few hundred years (the blink of a cosmologist's eye) will be indistinguishable from a.

Now download a photograph of the full Moon, have a good look at it, and ask yourself - is that how a hemisphere, in a vacuum, reflects light from a single source? Consider the light (from directly behind the photographer) striking the Moon's edges; what should be little more than a glancing blow (if starlight was inclined to race aimlessly into space) actually results in a 180 degree reversal of its course, and the light from its edges reaches us with the intensity of light striking the Moon dead centre; the only feasible explanation for this is that starlight (direct or reflected) only goes where gravity beckons, and what we see of the Moon is not conventionally reflected light, but rather the overlap of the Earth/Moon gravitational umbilical and the Sun/Moon gravitational umbilical.

If two rays of reflected sunlight departed from points on Venus separated by one degree of arc (forget for a minute about the fact that they are already supposed to be diverging from the centre of the Sun itself and, for ease of understanding, imagine them striking Venus parallel) and one hit the earth dead centre, the second would miss the earth by 0.5 million miles, at Venus's closest point of approach, and 2.8 million miles at her furthest point; and yet the intensity remains constant whether she is 30 or 160 million miles from us.

If there were any truth in the assumption that our Sun radiates her light omnidirectionally; then less than one ten billionth of her energy would be used to nourish her only living offspring (work out the surface area of a sphere of 93 million miles radius and then divide it by the area of a circle of the Earth's diameter) can such inefficiency actually exist in nature, which is super-efficient in every other way? If you look at the Sun (with suitable eye protection of course) you can see, by her Moon-like two dimensional presentation, that we are not feeding on scraps that are diverging from a point 93 million miles away, but rather we are nourished by a concentrated beam; a flood fill of our gravitational umbilical. Sunlight is 'on demand' and the amount received is proportional to gravity & distance from the source; this is why Mars has cooled as the Sun has become denser, and we will cool as she becomes denser still. If she were leaking her light uncontrollably in all directions, how likely does it seem that she would shine for several billion years? Starlight is the life-blood of the universe, and it circulates ONLY through the conduit of gravitational umbilicals. If we could see light from the side, the night sky would look very different but make more sense, as we would be able to see that every star is connected to every other body in the greater universe by a duct of light. If starlight could escape gravity unassisted and proceed aimlessly into space, would a supernova not be little more than a flash?

So how long it takes, for a black hole to recover all of the light that it emitted during the 
discharge phase of its cycle, will depend upon its mass, the proximity of other bodies and their mass & density. In the simplest terms - at the instant of supernova a star has an abundance of light, which it then surrenders freely to anything that it shared a gravitational relationship with prior to exploding; then it pulls itself together into ball of ardent liquid and gradually cedes less and less light (as its density increases) until it ends up so dense that it yields no light whatsoever (although larger/denser black holes will still 'see' it). The gravity of the individual, loosely bonded, hydrogen atoms (or sub-atomic particles if you prefer) of the supernova is spent pulling the cloud into a sphere and attracts no light from elsewhere in the universe, then as the star gains density it will gradually start to harvest light from other less dense bodies, the rate increasing proportionally to its ever increasing density. At the instant prior to supernova a black hole will be gaining light at a rate identical to which it loses it in the equal and opposite reaction of the instant following supernova; the final dramatic rush to full light saturation acting as a detonator.

The notion that stars die is preposterous; if the light is eternal and the matter is indestructible it cannot be anything but a cycle.

 

Are you going to answer my questions? You've had three years to work on it.

[MigL]

4 hours ago, Steve de Jonge said:

None of these supernovas occurred where there was prior human knowledge of a star. Indeed those most recently witnessed, in far away galaxies, have been attributed to 'white dwarfs colliding' because we are certain that no star was at their location prior to their sudden appearance.

You don't understand stellar evolution ...

4 hours ago, Steve de Jonge said:

The Reader's Digest Universal Dictionary: 'Implosion - A more or less violent collapse inward'. Only nuclear fission is as 'violent' as nuclear fusion, and a vast cloud of hydrogen atoms diminished to the dimensions of a black hole can best be described as a collapsed inwards.

You don't understand 'implosion' as it relates to stellar evolution ...

4 hours ago, Steve de Jonge said:

If you aren't great at visualisation, do this on an actual sheet of regular office paper, placed horizontally before you. To the left draw a circle, as large as will fit. In the centre draw a coin sized circle, and to the right draw a small dot. Now, from left to right, label them a, b, c, and write under them Mass = 10X, Mass = X, and Mass = 10X (if you crave precision, write 'not to scale' in one of the corners). If you now imagine that b is our own Sun and a & c are stars, of ten times her mass, at different stages of development in the Milky Way - then what you have before you is absolute proof that stars do not die. Consider the comparative likelihood of the two possible explanations for the difference in volume/density between a & c, which started their lives, after the last Milky Way Big Bang, as identical clouds of gas; 1. a is inexplicably lagging billions of years behind c; or 2. c is on the verge of supernova and in a few hundred years (the blink of a cosmologist's eye) will be indistinguishable from a.

You don't understand stellar formation ...

4 hours ago, Steve de Jonge said:

Now download a photograph of the full Moon, have a good look at it, and ask yourself - is that how a hemisphere, in a vacuum, reflects light from a single source? Consider the light (from directly behind the photographer) striking the Moon's edges; what should be little more than a glancing blow (if starlight was inclined to race aimlessly into space) actually results in a 180 degree reversal of its course, and the light from its edges reaches us with the intensity of light striking the Moon dead centre; the only feasible explanation for this is that starlight (direct or reflected) only goes where gravity beckons, and what we see of the Moon is not conventionally reflected light, but rather the overlap of the Earth/Moon gravitational umbilical and the Sun/Moon gravitational umbilical.

You don't understand reflection from a 'rough' body ...

4 hours ago, Steve de Jonge said:

If there were any truth in the assumption that our Sun radiates her light omnidirectionally; then less than one ten billionth of her energy would be used to nourish her only living offspring (work out the surface area of a sphere of 93 million miles radius and then divide it by the area of a circle of the Earth's diameter) can such inefficiency actually exist in nature, which is super-efficient in every other way?

You don't understand how much power our sun actually adiates ...

4 hours ago, Steve de Jonge said:

So how long it takes, for a black hole to recover all of the light that it emitted during the 
discharge phase of its cycle, will depend upon its mass, the proximity of other bodies and their mass & density. In the simplest terms - at the instant of supernova a star has an abundance of light, which it then surrenders freely to anything that it shared a gravitational relationship with prior to exploding; then it pulls itself together into ball of ardent liquid and gradually cedes less and less light (as its density increases) until it ends up so dense that it yields no light whatsoever (although larger/denser black holes will still 'see' it).

You have no understanding of what a Black Hole is ...
Any conclusions drawn from misunderstandings are, by definition, inaccurate.
I suggest you get your information from sources other than Reader's Digest.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Assertions with nothing to back them does not meet the requirements of Speculations.

 

[Janus]

On 7/3/2022 at 5:22 AM, Steve de Jonge said:

Now download a photograph of the full Moon, have a good look at it, and ask yourself - is that how a hemisphere, in a vacuum, reflects light from a single source? Consider the light (from directly behind the photographer) striking the Moon's edges; what should be little more than a glancing blow (if starlight was inclined to race aimlessly into space) actually results in a 180 degree reversal of its course,

It is a matter of specular vs. diffuse reflection.  Specular reflection is mirror-like, where the incidence angle and reflection angle are the same.  With diffuse reflection, the reflected light scatters in all directions. Which domimates in any given scenario depend on the nature of the reflecting surface.  A mirror is highly specular, while a sheet of paper is highly diffuse. 

The Moon falls on the paper end of the spectrum.

Here is an image of three spheres lit by the same light source, but with different specular/diffuse ratios:

On the bottom left is what you'd see from a mirror-like surface of pure specular reflection;  one small bright dot of light.

In the top middle we have a mix of specular and diffuse reflection. You get a bright highlight in the center and things darken as you move to the edge.

Then on the bottom right we get a fully diffuse sphere, Which looks evenly lit all around. (the slight darkening at the upper left is caused by the sphere not being perfectly centered in the frame, so the camera sees slightly around to the unlit side.)

The last one is what most closely matches the Moon in the sky.  In addition, the surface of the Moon is not smooth, and this just adds to the diffuse refection overall.

You seem to expect the Moon would behave like the mirrored ball in the lower left.  Given the fact that the Moon doesn't have a mirror-like surface, this simply would be possible.

And even if the surface was purely specular in nature, the fact that the surface is bumpy and irregular would have it looking something like this:

and not the single point of light.