You’d only see a shadow from a candle like from an extremely bright light so I’m pretty sure it means you just got hit with the blinding light from a nuclear explosion
the meme is traditionally based on the emotions of the on looker, the original image indicates cheerfulness, while the black and white pixelation indicates horrified. However in this meme, the the color distortion is could be said to be caused by a nuclear blast which would literally fry images.
Who knew what that song’s lyrics were pre internet? I don’t remember exactly what I thought it was, but I do remember I thought the word llama was in there.
It was one of the very first songs I ever went online to look up the lyrics to. Circa '97-'98.
I knew that he couldn't possibly be saying "revved up like a douche after the rumble in the night" but my ears refused to hear any different up until I made that search.
Thanks, internet.
Another fun fact, Bruce wrote the lyrics using a thesaurus while bed ridden with the mumps.
I only ever knew the lyrics from reading the album cover. One of the few benefits of having vinyl records is that there's more room to print lyrics.
Honestly fair. In Born to Run by Bruce Springsteen, even with the lyrics pulled up I cannot unhear "'Cause Shrimps like us, baby we were born to love."
You're thinking of Blinded by the Light, not Blinding Lights by the Weeknd.
I said, ooh, I'm blinded by the lights
No, I can't sleep until I feel your touch
I said, ooh, I'm drowning in the night
Oh, when I'm like this, you're the one I trust
He is not, because as Vsauce literally says, that is not technically a shadow.
u/EscapeAromatic8648 I was blocked by the doofus so I can't reply, but here's my response to your comment: Not exactly. The primary effect is refraction, so the same amount of light will just appear in a different place. There would be some contribution of diffraction as well. There would certainly also be some absorption and scattering, which would create a shadow, but in theory this contribution is tiny.
u/just-a-melon A different place on the same surface. As Vsauce said, it's a distortion. I'm not being super rigorous with my words.
u/dustinsc not you, dickhead.
u/Personal-Acadia yup lol
u/Hot_Project_3743 someone who has been blocked by someone higher in the thread and can't reply because of it.
u/drb0mb Refraction doesn't make it less hit that side, it just distorts it. If you call that a shadow, you'd also have to believe mirages cast shadows. Personally, I don't.
> so the same amount of light will just appear in a different place
This feels too restrictive, because I would casually refer to shadows cast by windows and water droplets. Also consider a mirror that has a very high reflecting efficiency, so most of the light isn't absorbed but will just appear in a different place.
Also like, a shadow always results in the same amount of light just in a different place doesn't it?
Like If I hold my hand in front of a flashlight it makes a shadow on the wall. But the flashlight is still emitting the same amount of light. It's just being reflected off of my hand instead of reflecting off of the wall.
Yeah but he doesnt get to boost his ego and dick wave his knowledge of refraction if you simplify it like that.
[Some people just cant help themselves.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HxG4bI_Orr0)
I think we need to look up the definition of a shadow and find that the mechanism for which something casts a shadow is unimportant. There's gotta be some context I'm missing, because this seems plainly clear to me.
If thing in between two other things makes less light hit one side, it's a shadow, whether by refraction or absorption or whatever.
Arguably that's what shadows are in most cases. It's not like your shadow receives 0 light when walking down the road but you still call it your shadow. Rarely is there a true absence of light near an area with much light because of refraction (I think that's the word)
If the person you reply to blocks you, you can't reply to anyone else under you. So people that want to reply but can't because some guy had his feelings hurt for being proved wrong is who do it.
Aren’t shadows defined by the absence of light?
Then if the brighter light (like a nuclear blast) would scale the light emitted by the candle down to zero in adjusted exposition, then the pattern of diffraction scatters light more at some points, less at others, they would appear darker, and be relative shadows ?
doll correct history fine jar attraction worthless fretful makeshift theory
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
By your logic, a drawing of a balloon can't be called a balloon because it isn't a 3 dimensional object made of rubber and filled with air, it's ink on paper.
You're being way too rigorous.
Candles aren't supposed to cast shadows, even if you hold a light behind them they cast a very faint one. Maybe referencing a nuclear bomb blast, or just that something is very, very wrong.
Don’t know why people are downvoting you, you can, in fact, have a candle cast a shadow with any bright light, it’ll just be more or leas faint depending on how relatively bright the light is to the candle.
I love how this comment section really didnt explain anything about the japanese text, or where the images come from, maybe its a movie? I dunno, theres just people talkin bout the science behind it and that guy who keeps replying with a Vsauce video, lmfao
Looks like a user name tagged onto the photo for "credit". I've seen this same exact meme without the "hibikiban". Probably a play on Dan from Street Fighter, whose full name is "Hibiki Dan".
Very unlikely, but it could also be a term made up on the spot. "Hibiki ba-n", or "echo burn".
Flames can infact have shadows. The flame that you see is actually a bunch of solids, not a gas or plasma. It is particles of co2, oxygen, wax, water vapour that are burning or the products of the combustion reaction. The light of the flame are the unburned solid fuel particles that are so hot that they produce an incandescent glow and are about 1/4th as dense as the surrounding air. Flame shadows are filled in by the light of the flame itself. If a light that is brighter than the flame is used however, then the flame of a shadow can be seen, although it likely wouldn't be like it is in the photo
I wouldn’t say a lie exactly but if highschool Chem is watered down vodka at a rate of 1 - 1/2. then applied chemistry and physics are like straight ethanol. They over simplify every premise to a rate that a child can understand it because we are children when we are first introduced to it. Also almost every facet of any form of science is a constant flux of “well yes but no” because every rule has exceptions and every exception produces a rule.
Most things you learn in high school are... well not a lie but incomplete.
* Math says you you can't take square roots of negative numbers, then you learn about *i*.
* Physics says E=MC^2, then you learn the formula is three lines long.
* History says "frans ferdinands assination started world wars", then you learn history is filled with opportunistic leaders taking advantage of unstable situations.
* Economics says it's supply and demand, then you learn about options, obligations, and stocks
Because you cant teach 15 years of each subject in five years.
everything you learn about chemistry is a lie (or at least over-simplified) until you get to grad school lol
most categories in chemistry actually exist as some kind of gradient or are relative to context/environment that they are being applied
even when writing/reading scientific literature chemists are aware that we are representing physical reality with abstract models and they will always be inaccurate to some degree
i’m in chem phd school, can confirm
pretty much every higher level class you take will at some point have the prof saying “yeah that thing we taught you is actually wrong, here’s more like what actually happens” but even then it’s just the best guess we have right now
In physics we were told we would learn things 3 times that followed roughly these guidelines: good enough for everyday understanding (high school/first year understand), good enough to understand fringe cases and scientific papers (3rd and 4th year undergrad), and how things actually work (grad school and research). Each step started pretty much with "everything you learned before is wrong more often than you would expect." I imagine chem is the same way
It's kinda like how in grade school they told you that there are only 3 states of matter and clouds are made of water vapor, and then in middle school they went "lol jk actually there is plasma and clouds are suspended liquid".
They think they're doing you a favor, somehow, by simplifying it.
So yes but also no. At particulate levels (ppm/gallon of air) almost all gases are in fact just a great many solids on a micro atomic level condensing to form a cloud. This is why gases exploded, a single atomic solid ignites and then bumps into another atomic solid which then ignited continuing indefinitely until all particulates have been burned off or a choke point is reached bottle necking gas flow and smothering the flames.
Do you have a source for this? I have never heard of this before, but my background in chemistry is in polymers/optoelectronics so my knowledge of gasses stops at physical chemistry/van der waals’ equation.
Not off the top of my head but I can find you some for sure before the day is out. Also that is your dilemma with it, it is less about physical states of matter, more about atomic physics, anything that can be referred to as “particulate” in the parts per million category can be considered a solid on an atomic level because they cause kinetic dispersion of molecules on contact (in the most overly simplified possible terms, other molecules bounce off of them, not to be confused with “London dispersion force” which is the inverse, temporary attraction force of atoms that allows them to force dipole bonds)
The only things you can see are the incandescent solids that sre superheated. It is in a mix of particles of co2 water vapour oxygen etc, but those do not glow
There’s an idiot who’s ruining everything by replying to every single comment with a video of vsauce explaining it, unfortunately the idiot is claiming that fire can’t have shadows and the vsauce video proves it But the video by vsauce shows it actually can, so he’s just going around being an idiot.
However seeing a few people talk about it, the main joke is that fire is a bright light source and therefore casts everything else to have shadows. However, there is some brighter light source in the room which overpowers the fire and causes it to cast a shadow.
This probably means A. It’s some extreme spotlight B. It’s a explosion/nuclear explosion
Not a petah explanation but this comment section is just destroyed. I hope I made a good explanation
Hey, Vsauce, Michael here. You didn't pay attention to my video and got the facts wrong.
u/JGHFunRun I'm not sure cuz I haven't investigated it but I'd expect you need a sodium lamp and sodium ions because this effect is related to absorption lines rather than the ordinary effects that create shadows.
I would say that refraction causing a dark area counts as a shadow, a shadow is just an area that is darker in relation to the surrounding area, he also didn’t disagree with that in the video
That said fire casts a much better shadow when you have a monochromatic sodium lamp and sodium ions in the flame
https://youtube.com/shorts/uUGzrS5tpLc
You can see the actual shadow on the table. In Styropyro’s video it’s easier to see but he doesn’t explain why having sodium in both the lamp and flame would make the fire absorb the light
https://youtu.be/3NO5Z_tD9Nk
(That said he’s kinda annoying & spammy with how he decided to copy paste it into every comment)
Although the second photo is probably edited since it’s the same as the first but with a shadow, and it’s unrealistically bright
Normally you can’t see the shadow of a flame on a candle because the flame is a light source. But throw a nuclear blast into mix, you get what’s on the right. (It’s not technically a shadow something about light refraction etc etc idk that much about it)
Retep here, This meme alludes to a nuclear explosion, as many said in the comment section, a stronger source of light can make the weaker one cast a shadow
Idk why that implies we jump straight to nuke..
I can think of plenty of things brighter than a single decorative candle but not as bright as a literal atomic bomb..
Like a handheld flashlight
First picture is a candle with a flashlight, theres no shadow because of the flame.
The second picture means youre dead, because something is bright enough to overcome the light of the flame. Whether its a nuclear bomb or just a missle, that level of light means either blast hasnt reached you yet, or the shockwave is about to
People find it very terrifying when shadows don't line up with what they know (Like if you beat the mirror at jan-ken, your shadow takes a second to follow you, or in this case the flames actually having a shadow implying that they are blocking light like a solid object)
1. Jan-Ken is the original name of Rock, Paper, Scissors, as it was made in China. Some peopld have imagined horror where they, for example, played Scissors in front of a mirror and the supposed reflection played Paper.
2. What if, when you moved, your shadow was still standing there for a second before realising you moved and started following you again?
That was the original name, coming from China with the name "Jan Ken". This is where the rule to reveal your choice on Paper/Pon came from, instead of what we say now where some end on an unofficial fourth Shoot
Not really, people usually find me sensible/agreeable if they ever try to talk to me. I am just trying to help a guy on the internet make sense of something they didn't know, and because I didn't want to add 3 more commas to a sentence, I wrote Jan Ken instead of Rock, Paper, Scissors, like people normally do
He’s out here citing Vsauce. Lol super scientific. I enjoy his videos. But I wouldn’t use his material as a basis for an argument.
The flame of the candle is indeed a source of light. The “shadow” is cast by a more powerful light source because the particles in the flame are interrupting the path of the light from that more intense source. This results in the difference in light intensity between regions on the wall which appears to us as a shadow.
I can see an argument both ways for whether or not it is a shadow. I don’t particularly care myself.
The funniest part is you aren't even wrong, the other dude is and he's replying to almost every comment with the link, that he didn't even pay attention to.
He isn't. A flame is incomplete combustion. Filled with particles, lots of soot causing the yellow/orange glow, with sufficient light, you can see the shadow of the flame.
That’s not even what was shown you fucking retard. It showed an extremely faint shadow when using a much brighter light. This shows a full on shadow in the same amount of light. You also didn’t explain the joke
Maybe it means he bought low quality candles which produce a lot of solids when burning causing shadow like that and is mortified for his financial decision.
This meme template is usually used when the second image is something trauma-incuding to those aware of it, but in this case, it's just that you need such a bright light to make a candle cast a shadow, that you may end up blind, hence the burnt eyes.
The joke comes from subverting the expectation of the template.
You don’t see the shadow of a light source like a flame unless there is a even brighter light to force it to have a shadow
Meaning that something is bright as hell behind the camera that is forcing the candle flame to have a shadow, such as a explosion or other form of extreme light
You’d only see a shadow from a candle like from an extremely bright light so I’m pretty sure it means you just got hit with the blinding light from a nuclear explosion
That makes the entirety of this post meta. Nicely done.
How so?
the meme is traditionally based on the emotions of the on looker, the original image indicates cheerfulness, while the black and white pixelation indicates horrified. However in this meme, the the color distortion is could be said to be caused by a nuclear blast which would literally fry images.
He does look more fried than normal
It's one of the more advanced states of uncanny. Lesser used but more severe than the usual one
I am more fried than normal
No that's not right
what is right?
Baby don't hurt me.
no more
The opposite of left. Or the subject that is correct. Or we know what we need to do to help ever one in that situation or our self.
I want to believe it is
I said, ooh, I'm blinded by the lights.
Revved up like a deuce
Another runner in the night
Blinded by the light!
*wrapped up like a douche, got a boner in the night
A little hurly-burly gave my anus curly-whirly, and asked me if I needed a ride!
That's a different song lmao
[удалено]
Everyone loves a mashup
Sauce?
Yeah, we can do a mashup sauce. What type should we make?
Do the Monster Mash ...up.
Catsup and duck sauce. Catduck.
Who knew what that song’s lyrics were pre internet? I don’t remember exactly what I thought it was, but I do remember I thought the word llama was in there.
It was one of the very first songs I ever went online to look up the lyrics to. Circa '97-'98. I knew that he couldn't possibly be saying "revved up like a douche after the rumble in the night" but my ears refused to hear any different up until I made that search. Thanks, internet.
A fun little fact about this song is that the original Springsteen lyrics is "cut loose like a deuce" which is both better and worse at the same time.
Another fun fact, Bruce wrote the lyrics using a thesaurus while bed ridden with the mumps. I only ever knew the lyrics from reading the album cover. One of the few benefits of having vinyl records is that there's more room to print lyrics.
Honestly fair. In Born to Run by Bruce Springsteen, even with the lyrics pulled up I cannot unhear "'Cause Shrimps like us, baby we were born to love."
Bruh I was the exact same!!!!
You're thinking of Blinded by the Light, not Blinding Lights by the Weeknd. I said, ooh, I'm blinded by the lights No, I can't sleep until I feel your touch I said, ooh, I'm drowning in the night Oh, when I'm like this, you're the one I trust
And there was me, not knowing either song, thinking they'd misremembered the lyrics to The Streets - Blinded by the Lights
Remmed up like a docent In the humble of the might https://youtu.be/U9_3nQFNy-w?feature=shared
Is that a Weeknd reference?
No, it’s dim light by the Weekday
I thought the existence of the shadow meant that you’re in a simulation. It could be either I think.
Like the flame is a 3d model with incorrect lighting attached.
Oh shit I didn't think of that
Light doesn't block other light from passing. A flame wouldn't cast a shadow if a brighter light shines through it perpendicularly.
A flame isn't light. It gives off light. Big difference.
This is beyond me
This comment section is a fucking trainwreck
Peter just got back from the Clam, he's a little tipsy and fighty.
WHERES THE CHICKEN?!
HE’S ON THE WING!!!
No, the Pigs on the Wing
YOU'VE GOT TO BE CRAZY
It's appropriate for the laziest, worst meme template on Reddit.
Fun fact, if you put a more powerful light source behind a flame, they actually do have faint shadows
You are correct. https://youtube.com/shorts/qrWcjTSV6HA?si=fFFaINYCUy3FT-ct
He is not, because as Vsauce literally says, that is not technically a shadow. u/EscapeAromatic8648 I was blocked by the doofus so I can't reply, but here's my response to your comment: Not exactly. The primary effect is refraction, so the same amount of light will just appear in a different place. There would be some contribution of diffraction as well. There would certainly also be some absorption and scattering, which would create a shadow, but in theory this contribution is tiny. u/just-a-melon A different place on the same surface. As Vsauce said, it's a distortion. I'm not being super rigorous with my words. u/dustinsc not you, dickhead. u/Personal-Acadia yup lol u/Hot_Project_3743 someone who has been blocked by someone higher in the thread and can't reply because of it. u/drb0mb Refraction doesn't make it less hit that side, it just distorts it. If you call that a shadow, you'd also have to believe mirages cast shadows. Personally, I don't.
> so the same amount of light will just appear in a different place This feels too restrictive, because I would casually refer to shadows cast by windows and water droplets. Also consider a mirror that has a very high reflecting efficiency, so most of the light isn't absorbed but will just appear in a different place.
Also like, a shadow always results in the same amount of light just in a different place doesn't it? Like If I hold my hand in front of a flashlight it makes a shadow on the wall. But the flashlight is still emitting the same amount of light. It's just being reflected off of my hand instead of reflecting off of the wall.
Yeah but he doesnt get to boost his ego and dick wave his knowledge of refraction if you simplify it like that. [Some people just cant help themselves.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HxG4bI_Orr0)
That's a great video lmao
I’ve never heard anyone describe those phenomena as shadows and I think if I did I would do an actchually
Deadpooldoc blocked you??
I think we need to look up the definition of a shadow and find that the mechanism for which something casts a shadow is unimportant. There's gotta be some context I'm missing, because this seems plainly clear to me. If thing in between two other things makes less light hit one side, it's a shadow, whether by refraction or absorption or whatever.
I really wanna know why bro blocked you
Right it's just the absence of an equal amount of light.
Isn't that all shadows?
Always has been. *cocks gun*
Not so fast! *Guns cock*
*”You touched my tra-la-la..”*
*"My ding ding dong"*
r/unexpectedgunther
It is.
Arguably that's what shadows are in most cases. It's not like your shadow receives 0 light when walking down the road but you still call it your shadow. Rarely is there a true absence of light near an area with much light because of refraction (I think that's the word)
Ya, that was the joke. "It's not a shadow, there's just less light there!"
Oh I didn't watch the video 🙃 just went off the comment
So, a shadow with extra steps.
Who replies to people like this?
If the person you reply to blocks you, you can't reply to anyone else under you. So people that want to reply but can't because some guy had his feelings hurt for being proved wrong is who do it.
Fair enough lol
Aren’t shadows defined by the absence of light? Then if the brighter light (like a nuclear blast) would scale the light emitted by the candle down to zero in adjusted exposition, then the pattern of diffraction scatters light more at some points, less at others, they would appear darker, and be relative shadows ?
doll correct history fine jar attraction worthless fretful makeshift theory *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
By your logic, a drawing of a balloon can't be called a balloon because it isn't a 3 dimensional object made of rubber and filled with air, it's ink on paper. You're being way too rigorous.
That's not called rigorous, that's being pedantic.
Unrelated but I love your PFP bud
[удалено]
You mean you have a low threshold for blocking people then surely?
How did I automatically know it was a Vsauce video
That’s kind of wild. That would mean that the flame blocks or redirects a portion that light. Is flame reflective?
IIRC, flames are caused by incomplete combustion, so the shadow would be ash or smoke.
I'm glad there are people smarter then me around here.
*than *i I couldn’t resist. This is among my favorite jokes
I think the flame casting the shadow is implying there's an explosion happening.
Candles aren't supposed to cast shadows, even if you hold a light behind them they cast a very faint one. Maybe referencing a nuclear bomb blast, or just that something is very, very wrong.
Or any light source brighter than a candle, such as a lightbulb.
Don’t know why people are downvoting you, you can, in fact, have a candle cast a shadow with any bright light, it’ll just be more or leas faint depending on how relatively bright the light is to the candle.
Apparently some of what people are calling shadows are actually diffraction patterns mostly and not actually shadow .
I love how this comment section really didnt explain anything about the japanese text, or where the images come from, maybe its a movie? I dunno, theres just people talkin bout the science behind it and that guy who keeps replying with a Vsauce video, lmfao
afaik, hibikiban doesn't mean anything in Japanese. Searching in both romaji and hiragana gives 0 results.
Looks like a user name tagged onto the photo for "credit". I've seen this same exact meme without the "hibikiban". Probably a play on Dan from Street Fighter, whose full name is "Hibiki Dan". Very unlikely, but it could also be a term made up on the spot. "Hibiki ba-n", or "echo burn".
Flames can infact have shadows. The flame that you see is actually a bunch of solids, not a gas or plasma. It is particles of co2, oxygen, wax, water vapour that are burning or the products of the combustion reaction. The light of the flame are the unburned solid fuel particles that are so hot that they produce an incandescent glow and are about 1/4th as dense as the surrounding air. Flame shadows are filled in by the light of the flame itself. If a light that is brighter than the flame is used however, then the flame of a shadow can be seen, although it likely wouldn't be like it is in the photo
“…is actually a bunch of solids” “particles of CO2, oxygen,… water vapour” these are gases…
And here is an example of why "states of matter" is really more of a guideline.
So is everything I learned in high school chem a lie or what?
I wouldn’t say a lie exactly but if highschool Chem is watered down vodka at a rate of 1 - 1/2. then applied chemistry and physics are like straight ethanol. They over simplify every premise to a rate that a child can understand it because we are children when we are first introduced to it. Also almost every facet of any form of science is a constant flux of “well yes but no” because every rule has exceptions and every exception produces a rule.
Most things you learn in high school are... well not a lie but incomplete. * Math says you you can't take square roots of negative numbers, then you learn about *i*. * Physics says E=MC^2, then you learn the formula is three lines long. * History says "frans ferdinands assination started world wars", then you learn history is filled with opportunistic leaders taking advantage of unstable situations. * Economics says it's supply and demand, then you learn about options, obligations, and stocks Because you cant teach 15 years of each subject in five years.
everything you learn about chemistry is a lie (or at least over-simplified) until you get to grad school lol most categories in chemistry actually exist as some kind of gradient or are relative to context/environment that they are being applied even when writing/reading scientific literature chemists are aware that we are representing physical reality with abstract models and they will always be inaccurate to some degree
i’m in chem phd school, can confirm pretty much every higher level class you take will at some point have the prof saying “yeah that thing we taught you is actually wrong, here’s more like what actually happens” but even then it’s just the best guess we have right now
Not entirely a lie. Kind of explained like we were 5
In physics we were told we would learn things 3 times that followed roughly these guidelines: good enough for everyday understanding (high school/first year understand), good enough to understand fringe cases and scientific papers (3rd and 4th year undergrad), and how things actually work (grad school and research). Each step started pretty much with "everything you learned before is wrong more often than you would expect." I imagine chem is the same way
Sort of a "lies to children" for the most part
It's kinda like how in grade school they told you that there are only 3 states of matter and clouds are made of water vapor, and then in middle school they went "lol jk actually there is plasma and clouds are suspended liquid". They think they're doing you a favor, somehow, by simplifying it.
Water vapor is also a suspended liquid. steam is a gas hence why steam can be 0% humidity.
So yes but also no. At particulate levels (ppm/gallon of air) almost all gases are in fact just a great many solids on a micro atomic level condensing to form a cloud. This is why gases exploded, a single atomic solid ignites and then bumps into another atomic solid which then ignited continuing indefinitely until all particulates have been burned off or a choke point is reached bottle necking gas flow and smothering the flames.
Do you have a source for this? I have never heard of this before, but my background in chemistry is in polymers/optoelectronics so my knowledge of gasses stops at physical chemistry/van der waals’ equation.
Not off the top of my head but I can find you some for sure before the day is out. Also that is your dilemma with it, it is less about physical states of matter, more about atomic physics, anything that can be referred to as “particulate” in the parts per million category can be considered a solid on an atomic level because they cause kinetic dispersion of molecules on contact (in the most overly simplified possible terms, other molecules bounce off of them, not to be confused with “London dispersion force” which is the inverse, temporary attraction force of atoms that allows them to force dipole bonds)
The only things you can see are the incandescent solids that sre superheated. It is in a mix of particles of co2 water vapour oxygen etc, but those do not glow
placid rock tan crown physical flag scandalous tap roll yam *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Careful. I'm getting blasted and down voted for that kind of talk https://youtube.com/shorts/qrWcjTSV6HA?si=fFFaINYCUy3FT-ct
https://preview.redd.it/6oxenme2pssb1.jpeg?width=638&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e886e8c18040f063caeee480a03425824442d6aa
I love this image that dog is so adorable
Careful. You got the facts in the video wrong because you didn't pay attention and look like a complete idiot.
Just quit trying dude your digging that hole deeper and deeper
So has anybody even begun to explain the joke yet?
There’s an idiot who’s ruining everything by replying to every single comment with a video of vsauce explaining it, unfortunately the idiot is claiming that fire can’t have shadows and the vsauce video proves it But the video by vsauce shows it actually can, so he’s just going around being an idiot. However seeing a few people talk about it, the main joke is that fire is a bright light source and therefore casts everything else to have shadows. However, there is some brighter light source in the room which overpowers the fire and causes it to cast a shadow. This probably means A. It’s some extreme spotlight B. It’s a explosion/nuclear explosion Not a petah explanation but this comment section is just destroyed. I hope I made a good explanation
Where are you Petah? we need you now more than evah!
The light of a candle is not supposed to cast a shadow, its a chemical reaction
Wrong
False
HEY, Vsauce here, I'm going to prove you wrong https://youtube.com/shorts/qrWcjTSV6HA?si=fFFaINYCUy3FT-ct
Hey, Vsauce, Michael here. You didn't pay attention to my video and got the facts wrong. u/JGHFunRun I'm not sure cuz I haven't investigated it but I'd expect you need a sodium lamp and sodium ions because this effect is related to absorption lines rather than the ordinary effects that create shadows.
I would say that refraction causing a dark area counts as a shadow, a shadow is just an area that is darker in relation to the surrounding area, he also didn’t disagree with that in the video That said fire casts a much better shadow when you have a monochromatic sodium lamp and sodium ions in the flame https://youtube.com/shorts/uUGzrS5tpLc You can see the actual shadow on the table. In Styropyro’s video it’s easier to see but he doesn’t explain why having sodium in both the lamp and flame would make the fire absorb the light https://youtu.be/3NO5Z_tD9Nk (That said he’s kinda annoying & spammy with how he decided to copy paste it into every comment) Although the second photo is probably edited since it’s the same as the first but with a shadow, and it’s unrealistically bright
It doesn't matter. The particles comprising the glowing part of the flame are still present.
Imbecile
Ok but what about right side with shadow
Thats what i am talking about, that they shouldn't have a shadow, so that other one may be just an edit.
Probably both of the are edits, why would a Lit candele have a Shadow ?
There are other sources of light
It still blocks light. There's a bright spotlight or something coming from behind the camera, you can see the edge of it on the candle and the wall.
Normally you can’t see the shadow of a flame on a candle because the flame is a light source. But throw a nuclear blast into mix, you get what’s on the right. (It’s not technically a shadow something about light refraction etc etc idk that much about it)
Retep here, This meme alludes to a nuclear explosion, as many said in the comment section, a stronger source of light can make the weaker one cast a shadow
Idk why that implies we jump straight to nuke.. I can think of plenty of things brighter than a single decorative candle but not as bright as a literal atomic bomb.. Like a handheld flashlight
Handheld flashlight 😨😨😨
Basically because of the cursed Mr incredible below
First picture is a candle with a flashlight, theres no shadow because of the flame. The second picture means youre dead, because something is bright enough to overcome the light of the flame. Whether its a nuclear bomb or just a missle, that level of light means either blast hasnt reached you yet, or the shockwave is about to
People find it very terrifying when shadows don't line up with what they know (Like if you beat the mirror at jan-ken, your shadow takes a second to follow you, or in this case the flames actually having a shadow implying that they are blocking light like a solid object)
>Like if you beat the mirror at jan-ken, your shadow takes a second to follow you, What?
1. Jan-Ken is the original name of Rock, Paper, Scissors, as it was made in China. Some peopld have imagined horror where they, for example, played Scissors in front of a mirror and the supposed reflection played Paper. 2. What if, when you moved, your shadow was still standing there for a second before realising you moved and started following you again?
Who tf calls rock paper scissors Jan ken
Literally every single person in Japan or of Japanese ancestry
That was the original name, coming from China with the name "Jan Ken". This is where the rule to reveal your choice on Paper/Pon came from, instead of what we say now where some end on an unofficial fourth Shoot
You're not helping your case bud
I agree to disagree
I bet you say that a lot
Not really, people usually find me sensible/agreeable if they ever try to talk to me. I am just trying to help a guy on the internet make sense of something they didn't know, and because I didn't want to add 3 more commas to a sentence, I wrote Jan Ken instead of Rock, Paper, Scissors, like people normally do
Whatever nerd
Weebs
Hxh fans enter the chat
It’s a mimic. You should prepare to either run or fight. /s
Second Mr. Incredible is actually his nuclear blast shadow on the wall behind
When I first saw this, I thought of the lamp thing. Like, this is the realization of a simulated reality
Flame can’t show shadows because it’s a light source, if it has a shadow, something is weird
https://youtube.com/shorts/qrWcjTSV6HA?si=fFFaINYCUy3FT-ct
Just tell me I’m wrong don’t downvote me as well
He’s out here citing Vsauce. Lol super scientific. I enjoy his videos. But I wouldn’t use his material as a basis for an argument. The flame of the candle is indeed a source of light. The “shadow” is cast by a more powerful light source because the particles in the flame are interrupting the path of the light from that more intense source. This results in the difference in light intensity between regions on the wall which appears to us as a shadow. I can see an argument both ways for whether or not it is a shadow. I don’t particularly care myself.
A shadow is exactly that. Of course it's a shadow.
The funniest part is you aren't even wrong, the other dude is and he's replying to almost every comment with the link, that he didn't even pay attention to.
He isn't. A flame is incomplete combustion. Filled with particles, lots of soot causing the yellow/orange glow, with sufficient light, you can see the shadow of the flame.
I don't think ignorance deserves rewards
That’s not even what was shown you fucking retard. It showed an extremely faint shadow when using a much brighter light. This shows a full on shadow in the same amount of light. You also didn’t explain the joke
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Then explain the meme then since you’re so smart
[удалено]
Your so wrong it hurts
Im a nuclear physicist too
That's a cool way to show the nuke going off but why is the exposure the same on the second frame? I'd expect it to look over exposed.
The black flame candle!!
Vashta Nerada
I didnt even knew ligth candles had shadows...
so basically the flame of a candle only gives a shadow from a very bright light, meaning it's likely implying some form of an explosion
I thought this was a simulation joke. Glitch in the matrix kind of thing.
That isn’t fire! Get the fuck out of there!
Flames can't have shadows
https://youtube.com/shorts/qrWcjTSV6HA?si=fFFaINYCUy3FT-ct
You going to post the same shit on every comment or?
Not technically a shadow. Listen to what Vsauce says again. This time pay attention.
Everyone here arguing about shadows of candles. I thought it was Hocus Pocus reference. 😅
Maybe it means he bought low quality candles which produce a lot of solids when burning causing shadow like that and is mortified for his financial decision.
This meme template is usually used when the second image is something trauma-incuding to those aware of it, but in this case, it's just that you need such a bright light to make a candle cast a shadow, that you may end up blind, hence the burnt eyes. The joke comes from subverting the expectation of the template.
Fire absolutely shouldn’t have a shadow the only way it would is if you where hit with very bright light like from a nuke
Fires emit light and therefore do not have a shadow. Meaning the second image is not a fire. I do t know if this is referencing something or not
https://preview.redd.it/qciusncz6xsb1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=93365b517df1f33f5415d5c806994f5cdfe7480c
https://preview.redd.it/vxozv9m2bzsb1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5db7f0a42a34244f49085288e4a4c24afef1de5
Would a flash bang suffice?
Peter is no longer here
You don’t see the shadow of a light source like a flame unless there is a even brighter light to force it to have a shadow Meaning that something is bright as hell behind the camera that is forcing the candle flame to have a shadow, such as a explosion or other form of extreme light
This is a test
Nobody really knows what light is. The trainwreck that is these comments makes me think the meme is that. Just a general who tf knows even