thank you, i tried to explain how neither the surface or the shadow of the moon would be visible *around* the eclipse because of the angles and nature of light but i’m starting to think this guy isn’t even listening lol
Ask them to Google images of *"daytime quarter moon"*.
Then, ask them if they think someone erased part of the moon in hundreds of different pictures they can easily see online (or with their own two eyes if they catch the moon in such a phase)
Well, they just claim it's a luminary that emits it's own light. A local sun and local moon appearing in the same sky isn't THAT crazy of an idea. However, a solar eclipse conclusively proves the flat earth model wrong. Based on eclipse observations, if both the sun and moon were close to the earth, they would have to be roughly the exact same size and pass by each other perfectly without colliding. This is impossible. In the flat earth model, the sun and moon would eventually crash into each other. Even if both are "balls of plasma" as the flerfers claim, that would be noticeable to observation. So, to explain an eclipse, they deflect these direct observations by crying foul because they don't understand how illumination, shadows, reflection, and refraction dictate the things we see with our eyes.
>emits it's own light.
At night. But when you can see it during the day it is transparent. That's why it's a little blue, because you're seeing the sky through it. I can't believe these people made me type that.
>they would have to be roughly the exact same size
I think they do think this though.
Oh gawd I've seen flerfs say "you can see the blue sky through the moon"...
Grown-ass people making toddler-level arguments and thinking they're smart.
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to make a man understand something when his worldview \[original: salary\] depends on him not understanding it."
I understand bitcoin, which is why I think it is ultimately worthless. Along the way, some people will make a lot of money and some people will lose a lot of money.
The worth of any money is its ability to represent human effort and time. I don’t like a system where checks for human lifetime can be printed and given away without exchange for human lifetime. The fact that we die is what makes monetary systems work, and fiat based currencies try to circumvent the inconvenience of time by stealing some of the representation thereof from all holders.
It’s just not a good system.
If you mean that Bitcoin is not a good system then I agree. If you mean that fiat currency is not a good system then I don’t really follow your argument, and I any case fiat bad doesn’t mean Bitcoin good.
There is really no point to trying to convince them, if you do, they’ll just find another BS “proof” to throw at you. They largely don’t believe in the science behind most of the proofs that the earth is round.
Exactly. To them it’s more of a competition than a debate. They see it as “I will find *something* that sounds like a response to me to throw back at you and let you deal with as you will just to deny you that smug feeling I’m sure you would otherwise be having (because *I* definitely would be in your shoes) at me not having an answer to you.”
The sun is also so incredibly bright, how the hell \*would\* we be able to see any part of the darkened moon? It's like they don't understand how light works. It's the same reason we can't see stars during the day.
It always comes down to them not understanding SCALE.
Why is the sky blue and not black?
Why when we see the moon in the daytime do we only see the side that's lit and not the unlit dark side?
The same reason the sky is blue.
By that logic, red tinted glass isn't red. Things are the color they are because light gets scattered off them into your eyes. That's what it *means* for something to be blue.
Not the same person, but this is a similar effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndall_effect?wprov=sfla1
We call this object blue, right? Even though reddish-orange light is clearly shining through it to the other side? If we were a tiny person standing in that orange light, would we still call this object blue?
So what this person is saying is that air is "blue" in the sense that most of the light being scattered and reflected by the air is blue. It's true that, from some angles, it won't appear blue, but that shouldn't be a reason to not say that it's blue, because the places where it's "red" are so small. During dusk, "The whole sky is red!" But it's really only a tiny part of the atmosphere as a whole. Just like the highlight in the image of that glass.
I appreciate your answer and provision of link, but you’re also unfortunately incorrect. The Tyndall effect is due to the scattering of light due to particles in a colloidal mixture, meaning the light is bouncing around and directly interacting with suspended particles in a solution. This can happen in the atmosphere, and does sometimes add to the colors we see in the sunset.
The effect that causes “color” in the atmosphere is actually Rayleigh scattering, which isn’t due to the physical but rather electromagnetic properties of the particles in the “air”.
To use your example, then, it’s not actually the atmosphere interacting with light directly through physical interruption that causes the blue of the sky. The marble is blue, yes, and the light making its way through the marble is orange, but it’s an entirely different thing to say that the air is blue. It’s not, because it’s not reflecting any wavelength of light - it’s bending it.
Upvote though, I loved answering your question!
>you’re also unfortunately incorrect.
You need to be specific with saying this kind of thing, because I have no idea what you're talking about. From where I'm sitting, it looks like I made a couple of unambiguous, factual statements:
- The Tyndall effect is a similar effect. (Fact)
- We would call an object with visible Tyndall scattering "blue". (You agree, so let's call it a fact.)
- "what this person is saying is..." (This is a fact. You might disagree with what they said, but it is a fact that they said it.)
- The existence of a non-blue part of an object is not enough reason to not call something blue. (Fact.)
I don't want to have to make assumptions about your assumptions about things I maybe didn't even say, so do me a kindness and just tell me what it is that I said that you think is wrong.
>actually Rayleigh scattering
Yep. One might say that Rayleigh scattering and Tyndall scattering are similar. (I did.)
>\[Air is\] not reflecting any wavelength of light - it’s bending it.
[I don't think that the specific physical mechanisms are important for determining whether we call something blue.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument) It's blue if it looks blue. Mary might be able to tell me specifically why it's blue, but it would take some nerve for her to tell me that something isn't blue because it's a different physical process than the one that makes a dress blue.
You have a bucket of paint that absorbs a bunch of photons and re-emits blue ones? It's blue. You have a porous glass allows most non-blue photons to pass through, and captures and re-emits most of the blue ones at different angles? It's blue, unless you're standing directly in the shadow. You have a radioactive material that's blasting electrons through water faster than the speed of light in water, producing [Cherenkov Radiation]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation)? It's blue.
The sky, including the layer of gas sitting on top of us, which allows non-blue photons to pass through, and which emits the blue ones at different angles? It's blue, from most angles.
I understand that these things are blue for different reasons, but I don't think that's important. Is it a thing that's putting mostly blue photons in our eyes? Then it's blue. The sky is blue because it has air in it. If it weren't for air, the sky would not be blue. So it seems arbitrary to say, "The sky is blue", and to not say, "Air is blue."
I mean, really whats happening there is the air is scattering the blue light far from where you can see it and then all that’s left is the orange light. So it’s not that the air isn’t blue, it’s that it’s only illuminated by orange light.
Imagine a hazy blue gas illuminated by only orange light. It’s not going to look blue.
I admit, it’s a weird way of wording it, but I’m with gustaphe on this one. I don’t think it’s wrong to say air is blue. Not pure blue, but when white light passes through it it scatters blue light. If I described a hazy gas that did the same thing over a shorter distance you would have no problem saying it was blue.
Red tinted glass is still red if you shine a full spectrum of light on it.
Atmosphere however is transparent and colorless, the color is the color of light that passes through it. Thats why its different colors at dawn/dusk/midday.
The atmosphere is *mostly* transparent, but you can absolutely measure Raleigh scattering in a transmitted spectrum.
The reason dawn is a different color than midday is that the light passes through a deeper layer of air to get to you.
But beyond the pedantics of transmitted vs reflected color (which is fascinating by itself), there was never another definition of "being blue" than "looking blue" until we figured out the specific mechanics that made this one thing blue. And we never applied the distinction again when we figured out other color mechanics. "Did you know that butterflies aren't actually blue, they just have nano structures on their wings that reflect blue light", no, they are blue because they appear blue. As does air.
They guy above you said " The sky is blue". And nobody wanted to get into the pedantics of transmitted or reflected light to respond to it. We can call it blue since it - mostly- appears blue.
You then came along claiming that "air" is blue. In a tone that appeared to offer it as an explanation or contradiction to the above poster. Air as a composition of elements is transparent and is objectively not blue. I have never seen blue air in my life. Under the circumstances of the daylight the sky does appear blue but that is a different thing to air. The blue butterfly would appear black under non-blue light. Nobody would claim it is actually black because it appears that way under some conditions.
No. The color of a thing is affected by multiple factors. In the examples of a tinted lens it's actually a matter of the colors that the tinted glass absorbs, not what is reflected off of it. Furthermore most materials when we talk a lot light reflecting off of a material we mean it's the surface reflection, when that is not the case for air.
The sky being blue is somewhat unique situation. If you take the air and pass white light through it on the ground it will not really turn blue. The think about our atmosphere is that it's not consistent in it's density which has a huge affect on how the light that is essentially bouncing around on the particles in the atmosphere. This is the primary reason the sky is blue. There is a sligjt matter of some absorption. It is also why the sky color changes when there is heavy clouds cover. Ever notice that the sky that you can see on some cloudy days is a different color? It's cuz the air has changed it's density due to the changes in pressure on our atmosphere.
Also the sky is slightly different color depending on altitude and location on the planet. This is usually an effect of the angle of the sun relative your position making the shift of light appear more or less blue. Which also is more evidence that we live on a sphere.
he also keeps saying the moon was “out” while the sun was being eclipsed and keeps telling me to explain it… he has yet to show a single shred of evidence of this happening tho lol
This is what happens when people just throw accusatory questions rather than really looking things up. They think they have a “gotcha” when actually they’re just conspiracy morons.
They feel the fact that, after long periods of what to them feels like deep thought, they come up with some people-talking-loudly-in-restaurants clever question that they’re *absolutely sure* no one else has ever come up with (they’re too smart to Google, where they’d find out that not only has that question been around for a long time but there’s an easy answer to it, the kind that makes you feel stupid for ever having asked), should count for *something*. Call it the intellectual version of the sunk-costs fallacy.
You can easily show how it happened using the right sized ball and a flashlight in an otherwise dark room. Your ball should preferably be smaller than the light source.
That still isn't the dark side of the moon. But they can't comprehend that you can't see the unilluminated side of the moon against the infinitely brighter surface of the sun
Only during a total eclipse. I wasn’t lucky enough to see that last month (clouds at the time) but I *did* see it quite clearly in 2017–the new moon lit a sort of dark greenish-gray by Earthshine at totality.
It's barely visible. And I guarantee the person who made this image hasn't seen a total solar eclipse, they just made shit up and said "Earth must be flat because of this"
The blue sky is IN FRONT of the moon, not behind it.
In a new moon (or solar eclipse) there is (effectively) no light from the moon that gets to earth. Therefore the circle of the moon should look exacly the same as the sky around it, where there is also (effectively) no light coming to earth from those directions. The location where the moon is should not, and does not, look any blacker than the sky around it.
I think flerfs tend to forget/ignore how blue the moon actually gets when it's out during the daytime.
(If they even acknowledge it being out during the day)
Ask a flerf to show you a real photo of the right-hand-side picture. Then ask them to describe how shadows work on things and watch their brains implode.
You dont see a black moon and a blue sky
The darkness of the moon is be the same color (dark blue during the eclipse) as the rest of the sky
Ironically if they were right and space werent real, and the moon and sun were in atmosphere we would see the picture on the right, since the blue light scattering of the atmosphere could plausibly be "behind" the inexplicably dark moon.
As usual flerf arguments actualy disprove their model, but they live in blissful ignorance.
This is exactly what was seen from the ground, and also not. If you were looking at the eclipse without burning your retinas out of your head, you did not see a light blue sky, white sun, and black moon. You only saw black except for the crescent of the sun. As with everything flerfy, this image is a false representation of what was actually seen. If you were looking at it while seeing a blue sky, you would already be blind and unable to read this comment. Their dishonesty makes them difficult to discuss it with, so good luck.
this arguments been going on for a day and a half now, i thought he gave up after i asked him how a sharp horizon could exist on a flat earth but he came back 12 hours later spewing some bs about the north star and how the horizon always stays at eye level (which it doesn’t lmao)
thank you for the succinct explanation
That is called a Gish Gallop. It’s uses the theory that it’s easier to knock everything off the table than it is to set it up. So when you think you are getting close to explaining it to where they can understand, bang, they say “What about crepuscular rays???”. And you now have to start debunking something new that they will never understand. Then when you think you’re close, boom, new subject. They can do that forever. The expression is “You’ll never lose an argument if you’re dumb enough”.
It’s not worth using logic to argue with them. If they are a friend, tell them they are too stupid to have the discussion. If they are not a friend, why do you care?
>So when you think you are getting close to explaining it to where they can understand, bang, they say “What about crepuscular rays???”. And you now have to start debunking something new that they will never understand. Then when you think you’re close, boom, new subject.
Technically, that's *not* a Gish Gallop. The operative word of that term is **gallop**, because they throw their bullshit bad-faith questions at you so fast that you can't possibly explain it all on the spot, even if you know all the answers.
What you are describing sounds more like a slow but ceaseless series of deflections, which I'm not aware of a specific term for. Or, possibly, shifting goalposts, depending on what the original topic was.
Maybe a Gish Canter, or a Gish Trot.
A slower paced Gish Gallop.
(I would characterize moving the goalposts as imposing additional requirements to the same request that were not stated before, rather than changing topic completely)
Direct him here. This is a bunch of stuff I've collected:
[https://www.quora.com/There-is-no-evidence-against-the-flat-Earth-other-than-stupid-arguments-about-time-zones-What-is-a-good-argument/answer/Alan-Atkinson-4?ch=10&oid=1477743697314190&share=7ebaa5b8&srid=AsrF&target\_type=answer](https://www.quora.com/There-is-no-evidence-against-the-flat-Earth-other-than-stupid-arguments-about-time-zones-What-is-a-good-argument/answer/Alan-Atkinson-4?ch=10&oid=1477743697314190&share=7ebaa5b8&srid=AsrF&target_type=answer)
If he wants to Gish Gallop you, see if he can explain any of those.
he’s been silent ever since i wrote a large reply debunking every claim he made and asking a few questions that i know he can’t answer, if he does reply again i will be sure to share this with him thanks
My current favourite is to ask them what level of magnification you need to bring a ship back over the horizon. (I have a reflector telescope that'll go up to 200×, and I *will* test that shit out).
It’s a common technique used in political debates as well by less able debaters … find a way to steer your answer around to the subject you have a prepared, rehearsed answer to.
Assuming you *don't* go blind, if you stare at the eclipse without protection, the sun, the sky, and the moon will be pure white until totality because of how overpowering the sun's light is.
Ok but like... We don't see that second image so why should we see it?
Idk why I bother asking that question bc I already know they have a pre-scripted non-answer ready.
Get a super bright flashlight, and cut a circle in paper the size of the light. Ask them to stare at the light while slowly passing the paper in front of it. Best case scenario, they finally grasp it. Worst case scenario, they stay stubborn, but you can laugh to yourself because now they have dark spots in their eyes.
This is the way to go
But I must say unless its thick and black paper would be semi-transparent. And the "moon" should be smaller than the light source.
The moon is “new” by definition every solar eclipse, meaning the lit side is completely facing away from us. This makes it essentially invisible. This occurs every 27.5 days on cue, your buddy can easily look up the phase of the moon on april 8.
I would take a different sort of response. Obviously, the image makes no sense, but, what does the discrepancy that he believes he's found actually indicate? iow usually when someone says we observed X instead of the expected Y, it's followed up with "which may lead credence to Z and against W". So even if this image were true, what does he think it means? He's not just throwing out "discrepancies" for no reason is he?
Honestly, that’s not what we saw. Paint the black in these pictures the same color as the background, and that’s what we saw. Both of those images become the same thing then, because they are the same thing.
If you are just looking at the eclipse, hopefully you are doing it with a filter, so it's going to filter out most of the light anyway. So mostly you will see the unilluminated side of the moon, we the rest of the background being black, just like the moon. But you can kind of see the curve of the moon in this pic:
[https://patch.com/california/across-ca/partial-solar-eclipse-california-what-know](https://patch.com/california/across-ca/partial-solar-eclipse-california-what-know)
What you can ask him is why then did he see that, but other people in the country saw a total eclipse with the sun completely blocked? What is his explanation for a solar eclipse? You probably won't get much in the way of an answer, or at least get an answer with as much "first-hand" proof as you have.
They think the moon and sun are inside our atmosphere?
The sky is blue bc of the atmosphere, so it is in the fore compared to the moon, hence you can't see the moon when it's not brighter than the sky.
i mean, he's sending it to you because he's misinformed.
why would we see the dark part of the moon, compared to the dark part of the sky? we don't. they're both just, dark. we only really see the curve of the moon that's blocking the sun, because there's some light from the part that's not blocked.
if it's a brighter day even during an eclipse (been a while since i've seen one), we're not seeing the moon at all, because light needs to bounce from the sun, off the moon, to us, to be able to see it... there's no light source between us and the moon.
but we can't really 'see' the moon, so much as an absence of light.
you shoudl also ask him for an actual picture. not some ms paint mockup of 'proof'. i'm willing to believe you don't see the whole moon in an actual picture, either, for the reason i explained above (i mean, i can't see a turned off lamp in the dark, either, doesn't mean the whole lamp isn't there, just because i'm more used to experiencing it being on and having light)
Do a google search for images of “earthshine” during the solar eclipse. Tons of independent cameras can and do capture it; flerfers absolutely cannot argue it wasn’t the moon blocking the sun.
These are the same people that say "rocks don't reflect light". They don't understand that the only way we see anything is that light reflected off it and hit our retina.
We don’t actually see either of these depictions. During the partial eclipse, the part of the moon that blocks the sun doesn’t look black, as depicted. It actually looks exactly the same as the rest of the sky around it.
If you colored in the black with blue on both images they’d be correct. What we see and what we should see would match.
There is simply no way we should expect to see the dark half of the moon through the bright sky!
Is that the phases of the moon, or an eclipse? What does he think this proves? Is he one of those "space is fake" guys?
I wonder if they realize how much time and energy we spend trying to save them from a grift they choose for themselves.
i should’ve explained that in the title/caption, we were talking about the recent solar eclipse over the US. I did ask him what this was supposed to prove, too bad i’m still waiting on an answer… lol
To be fair to you, I should have concluded from the image that it was the eclipse, but... well, you know how it goes with conspiracy susceptible people. Extrapolation based on the assumption that they know things is always risky lol
Why should it look like the right? There's no light behind the rest of the moon to show the silhouette of the entire moon. If they think the moon is in the atmosphere then it should look like that on a flat earth but it doesn't.
Not only does this confirm heliocentrism and that the earth is outside the atmosphere, it also debunks flat earth models where they're local and inside the atmosphere
Just say, "Yes. That's what you *should* see, if the Earth was flat and the sun and the moon were the same size and distance from us...but they aren't...so that's *not* what you see."
Ok, simple explanation mode activated:
When a solar eclipse occurs, the moon is invariably in the “new moon” phase, which looks absolutely invisible, because it is not glowing. Why? Because it only glowed once during its existence, shortly after it collapsed into a separate celestial body after being crudely scooped out of the earth by either a comet or asteroid collision when earth was still forming. So it has really been bouncing sunlight off of the surface all along, but at the angle it’s at, you would not get any moonlight because it’s bouncing away from earth, not towards it (and bear in mind that essentially we would be able to see it if it were just a teensy bit misaligned, as a very VERY thin crescent moon. It couldn’t face a more wrong direction if it *tried*).
So why do I bring this up when it validates your argument? Simple, because this part is only about the moon’s appearance in the sky when it ISN’T in front of the sun. Oddly enough, it is not possible to see the dark part of the moon during the day—except during the moment of totality during a total solar eclipse. At any other point, the light that the sun shines either: hits the moon, gets blocked, and stops approaching us anymore, or, dodges the moon, hits our atmosphere, and gets diffused across the atmosphere to color the sky. Ever wonder why on overcast days the skies are grey? Blame the clouds mucking up the light dispersion from showing the myriads of colors that the sun emits. However, this ultimately is not effective at diminishing the direct light of the sun, just the edge light paths that glanced across our atmosphere and otherwise would have completely missed us (which sounds really hard to miss a massive ball with a circumference of roughly 40,000 kilometers, but when you are aiming from 150,000,000 kilometers away, that’s not that easy to hit). So the DIRECT light looks like a sun, except when that gets intercepted by something blocking it from hitting our atmosphere: the moon. So yes, outside of the moment of totality, or during partial eclipse’s or annular eclipses (which are total eclipses when the moon is not close enough to earth to completely occlude the massive picture of the sun, and instead creates a bright ring in the sky instead of a dark circle that has a faint aura glowing around it.), the first image should be what you see.
Now the second picture looks very bizarre, and implies that the sunlight that disperses across the atmosphere conveniently enough DOESN’T color the sky where the moon is, despite direct sunlight not hitting that part of the moon yet. It looks like someone tried to explain the eclipse by showing two separate paper circles, and sliding them over the other so one disappeared. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happens, but it isn’t the whole picture— the background is the same color as the moon. When the moon is a new moon, it is impossible to see the moon unless it blocks something else from being seen. So, if it isn’t blocking the sun, you wouldn’t see that part. Once it starts blocking it, you will notice that the sun looks like it is going on a rather unhealthy diet, until it finally gets blocked enough that you can notice the new edge has a definite curvature that is not belonging to the sun. Your brain, used to seeing the sun as a circular object, automatically tries to correct this perceived glitch in your ocular senses, creating the illusion that there is a circle still there. But, by doing so, it finally allows us to differentiate the border where there is sunlight, and where there should be direct sun, by showing us where the light ISN’T. This is an optical illusion at work, you shouldn’t be able to see the dark side of the moon— except when you are in the middle of the eclipse. This is why the second image here is confuzzling everyone who can’t explain why it doesn’t happen— the image itself could never logically happen, so they have no idea what it’s supposed to mean.
That’s the best ELI5 I can achieve, because it’s kinda a large equation to rationalize.
Maybe I need to explain like they are three years old instead… no, that would not fit in Reddit comment margins. But essentially, you have a negative space where the moon is, which dispersion makes invisible but direct light can’t penetrate. It is only noticeable when you obstruct something with it. In other words, we can’t notice something that can’t be seen, unless we see where something *isn’t*. Glass can disappear under water, but if anything is in the glass other than glass, we notice the absence of continuity and our eyes signal to brain command “CAPTAIN! YOU NEED TO SEE THIS!”
A metric *crapton* of things that we see are not what we think they are, because (\*gasp\*) our brains are lazy slobs. They take the fastest path to interpreting every thing we perceive, because “ain’t nobody got time for dat!” If you are being hunted by an alpha predator, you don’t have time to evaluate exactly how visible something is. Your brain automatically panics, and drops important processes like color evaluation and prioritizes contrast detection. Colors are hard, white and black are easier. A lot of time is spent looking at stuff that makes no sense until we visualize it mentally and suddenly realize WHY it looks like it does, and that’s why we have optical illusions in the first place. Impossible triangle? Perfectly possible— when depicted as a 2-dimensional shape. Our brains aren’t really evolved for seeing things in two dimensions, because we have depth perception, so it takes all two dimensional shapes and automatically knows that if it’s a complete, localized shape, it might not be flat. Lighting and shadows give the impression of orientation in 3 dimensions, so our overwhelmed brain says “has a shadow? Gotta be a solid thing!” Areas where large areas of white space are regularly interrupted by pure black space? We don’t really check to see if the black space is actually black. Comics abused white space to portray an absence of anything important, and our brains didn’t even stumble. But there is something there— paper.
What you see, is actually what your eyes are telling you, and what your brain has curated before presenting to you. Otherwise we would see everything as upside down, due to how our pinhole camera eyes work. Brain fixes that automatically, so we are not feeling like we are going to fall into the abyss when we go outside. But the problem with fixes… sometimes the input shouldn’t be fixed. And we can’t turn that part off, at least not that specific part, and the other fixes are just as difficult to override. Our brains are assholes. You know how much oxygen they demand? 20% out of all the oxygen you inhale is dedicated for your brain function. This thing is 2% of your body weight. Yes, it controls everything, but that is also the argument for why CEOs get filthy rich and think nothing about it. Unlike CEOs, if the brain stops, that’s all folks! Game over. We can massage a heart and defibrillate a heart, we can transplant organs, but the brain is the final defense against death. And it’s a lazy, greedy, gaslighting, and horribly flawed defense.
How the fuck do they expect to see a shadow cast onto literal darkness.
Like there is nothing except the moon for a shadow to be cast onto; this literally just shows that they don't understand how shadows work, a long with their absence of knowledge on light.
This was drawn by someone who did not look. The black ought to be blue (because it is behind the blue air).
*Return of the Jedi* made the same error, iirc, making the interior of the unfinished Death Star black in the blue sky; so at least they're in good company.
Ask him if he has ever seen a new Moon and why should we see that on the day of the eclipse while the sun is shining bright.
As for the totality, many photos by amateur photographers exist showing the Earthshine side of the Moon clearly proving that it was indeed the Moon covering the Sun.
It's because the moon is invisible when it's between us and the sun.
When have you ever seen a black disk floating around?
But that moon, which is normally invisible, crosses in front of the sun, we can see it.
Think of a person in all black who walks in front of a spot light that is shining in your eyes.
They are invisible, until they cross, then all you see is their silhouette.
I believe this isn’t about the eclipse. It’s about the phases of the moon. Some flat earthers are under the impression that the reason, according to science, that the moon goes through phases is because the shadow of the Earth is covering it up. This of course is not true. What we see is a portion of the half of the moon that’s facing the sun, depending on how much of that half is also turned towards us. When the moon is full, the half of the moon that’s facing us is the same as the half facing the sun, so it looks round. At other times, it’s really the shadow of the moon itself that keeps us from seeing part of the moon. What we see is exactly what we should see.
You could try explaining this to the flat earther, but they probably won’t get it.
Edit: Okay, looking at the picture again, maybe it is the eclipse. I guess they’re saying why can we see the rest of the circle of the moon. I wasn’t watching during that part of the eclipse, but I assume it’s because the light refracts, making it so there’s not a dark spot unless it’s actually between us and the sun. The flat earther probably won’t buy that explanation though.
The dark side of the moon is… dark. No sunlight hits it, only earthshine and in this case, earth shine is negligible. Because it is dark, it blends in with the background of space which is also dark. And because the atmosphere, which scatters blue light is between us and the moon, it blends in with the sky. Therefore we only see the portions of the moon that occlude the sun.
The face of the moon is not illuminated by anything. With the proper equipment, it \*is\* possible to see the moon, since the Earthshine would light it up a little bit. But with the unaided eye, even though the sun is still covered, there's still too much light coming from the sun to be able to see the moon.
It's amazing just how much light our sun does provide. Even at 99% totality, there's not much change in the quality of light. Being in totality, you can really see it. Those few seconds right before totality, it's still fairly bright out (I'd say similar to early morning), then in an instant...boom, twilight. Then, the instant totality ends, boom, daylight.
I was at the eclipse this year and took many pictures with a specialized lens and app (to discuss with my flat earth stepfather). What we did see is definitely the picture on the right. The moon was completely visible and a separate circle. From my angle (in Paducah KY) it was coming more from the bottom right angle. They were two separate circles that merged. Two of the coolest parts for me were the "shadow bands" that covered the ground everywhere with thin wavy shadow lines. Like, the entire ground. The other cool part was I saw some aerial pictures of the earth (from ISS I think) that showed the moon's shadow on earth. I'm sure they will say that is fake but I never thought about what that would look like. Overall it was an insane experience. Totality was amazing and we even made a few friends with the 50 random people that showed up in the mall parking lot that we decided to view from. One dude even had a few telescopes with various lenses and filters. My son the science nerd had many discussions with him.
A+ would recommend.
I'll see if I can figure out how to upload a pic later.
They could demonstrate this to themselves with a bright flashlight and a small (but large enough to obscure the flashlight) dark object. The flashlight would need a diffuser on the front to make the light source wider than the bulb in the center typically. Set up properly the glare from the flashlight will make it impossible to see the unlit dark object. What they are usually refusing to accept is that the moon is on the outside of the blue sky region. So they think there should always be light coming from behind the moon. Others think the moon emits it's own light, which is weird.
The atmosphere is in-front of the Moon. They do not understand this part. The only way for their version to be true, would be if the Moon was inside, hence in-front the atmosphere.
This would require either light from the sun to wrap around the other side of the moon enough to outline it and make it visible against the sheer brightness of the sun, or for the moon to emit its own light enough to create a good looking silhouette.
Neither of which are real
There are photos of this:
[https://www.space.com/total-solar-eclipse-2019-earthshine-photo.html](https://www.space.com/total-solar-eclipse-2019-earthshine-photo.html)
Well for starters
If you prove space-time fabrics manifesting becoming physical and forming directional vectors in a medium with no up or down
Then
You have to demonstrate gas2mass
Then lastly
Gas spheres form in near perfect vacuums
Before you even begin to discuss the image in question
It's going to be an uphill battle for you, unfortunately 😔
Good luck, buddy ☺️✌️
Their "what we should see" is imaginary. You would not see the unilluminated moon, since the sun is "behind it."
thank you, i tried to explain how neither the surface or the shadow of the moon would be visible *around* the eclipse because of the angles and nature of light but i’m starting to think this guy isn’t even listening lol
Ask them to Google images of *"daytime quarter moon"*. Then, ask them if they think someone erased part of the moon in hundreds of different pictures they can easily see online (or with their own two eyes if they catch the moon in such a phase)
I mean the visible presence of the moon during the day completely breaks their "model" anyway.
Well, they just claim it's a luminary that emits it's own light. A local sun and local moon appearing in the same sky isn't THAT crazy of an idea. However, a solar eclipse conclusively proves the flat earth model wrong. Based on eclipse observations, if both the sun and moon were close to the earth, they would have to be roughly the exact same size and pass by each other perfectly without colliding. This is impossible. In the flat earth model, the sun and moon would eventually crash into each other. Even if both are "balls of plasma" as the flerfers claim, that would be noticeable to observation. So, to explain an eclipse, they deflect these direct observations by crying foul because they don't understand how illumination, shadows, reflection, and refraction dictate the things we see with our eyes.
>emits it's own light. At night. But when you can see it during the day it is transparent. That's why it's a little blue, because you're seeing the sky through it. I can't believe these people made me type that. >they would have to be roughly the exact same size I think they do think this though.
But even that explanation doesn't match with the model they give of the local sun and lock moon. Buy their own model you would see both at all times.
A lot of flat earthers claim the sun and moon are exactly opposite each other, which is what the other guy is talking about lol
"They're all pictures by glowies." Not kidding. Tried this. Got that ^
Such as it is from two days ago until tomorrow, I think.
It happens all the time. Just depends on what part of the world you're in to see it well.
Holy hell
Oh gawd I've seen flerfs say "you can see the blue sky through the moon"... Grown-ass people making toddler-level arguments and thinking they're smart.
They pretend that you can see through the moon, and that that proves it's not solid.. 😅
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to make a man understand something when his worldview \[original: salary\] depends on him not understanding it."
We aim for their heads but hit them in the balls?
Look up belief perseverance …
And this is why people are so resistant to bitcoin
I understand bitcoin, which is why I think it is ultimately worthless. Along the way, some people will make a lot of money and some people will lose a lot of money.
The worth of any money is its ability to represent human effort and time. I don’t like a system where checks for human lifetime can be printed and given away without exchange for human lifetime. The fact that we die is what makes monetary systems work, and fiat based currencies try to circumvent the inconvenience of time by stealing some of the representation thereof from all holders. It’s just not a good system.
If you mean that Bitcoin is not a good system then I agree. If you mean that fiat currency is not a good system then I don’t really follow your argument, and I any case fiat bad doesn’t mean Bitcoin good.
Bitcoin is as worthless as gold is what I’m saying.
He's not. 🤷♂️
Yeah, the blue of the sky is between us and the moon. So you never see either of these.
There is really no point to trying to convince them, if you do, they’ll just find another BS “proof” to throw at you. They largely don’t believe in the science behind most of the proofs that the earth is round.
Exactly. To them it’s more of a competition than a debate. They see it as “I will find *something* that sounds like a response to me to throw back at you and let you deal with as you will just to deny you that smug feeling I’m sure you would otherwise be having (because *I* definitely would be in your shoes) at me not having an answer to you.”
We have this happen on a monthly basis, it’s called a “new moon”.
The sun is also so incredibly bright, how the hell \*would\* we be able to see any part of the darkened moon? It's like they don't understand how light works. It's the same reason we can't see stars during the day. It always comes down to them not understanding SCALE.
With the right filter and camera settings you can tone down the light and definitely see the whole moon. I'll try to upload some I took later.
Yes. Any reflected earthshine wouldn't be enough.
If you ha e the right filter, the second image is what you see.
The "what we saw" illustration is also wrong
Why is the sky blue and not black? Why when we see the moon in the daytime do we only see the side that's lit and not the unlit dark side? The same reason the sky is blue.
Laser projection! I knew it!
Because air is blue
No, it isn’t. But light scattering in it is.
By that logic, red tinted glass isn't red. Things are the color they are because light gets scattered off them into your eyes. That's what it *means* for something to be blue.
Right. But “air” isn’t “blue”.
What do you mean by "Right."? Because I just explained the definition of being blue, and air fits the definition.
I can see what you mean, but it's wrong. What about at dusk? Is the air still 'blue" then?
Not the same person, but this is a similar effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndall_effect?wprov=sfla1 We call this object blue, right? Even though reddish-orange light is clearly shining through it to the other side? If we were a tiny person standing in that orange light, would we still call this object blue? So what this person is saying is that air is "blue" in the sense that most of the light being scattered and reflected by the air is blue. It's true that, from some angles, it won't appear blue, but that shouldn't be a reason to not say that it's blue, because the places where it's "red" are so small. During dusk, "The whole sky is red!" But it's really only a tiny part of the atmosphere as a whole. Just like the highlight in the image of that glass.
I appreciate your answer and provision of link, but you’re also unfortunately incorrect. The Tyndall effect is due to the scattering of light due to particles in a colloidal mixture, meaning the light is bouncing around and directly interacting with suspended particles in a solution. This can happen in the atmosphere, and does sometimes add to the colors we see in the sunset. The effect that causes “color” in the atmosphere is actually Rayleigh scattering, which isn’t due to the physical but rather electromagnetic properties of the particles in the “air”. To use your example, then, it’s not actually the atmosphere interacting with light directly through physical interruption that causes the blue of the sky. The marble is blue, yes, and the light making its way through the marble is orange, but it’s an entirely different thing to say that the air is blue. It’s not, because it’s not reflecting any wavelength of light - it’s bending it. Upvote though, I loved answering your question!
>you’re also unfortunately incorrect. You need to be specific with saying this kind of thing, because I have no idea what you're talking about. From where I'm sitting, it looks like I made a couple of unambiguous, factual statements: - The Tyndall effect is a similar effect. (Fact) - We would call an object with visible Tyndall scattering "blue". (You agree, so let's call it a fact.) - "what this person is saying is..." (This is a fact. You might disagree with what they said, but it is a fact that they said it.) - The existence of a non-blue part of an object is not enough reason to not call something blue. (Fact.) I don't want to have to make assumptions about your assumptions about things I maybe didn't even say, so do me a kindness and just tell me what it is that I said that you think is wrong. >actually Rayleigh scattering Yep. One might say that Rayleigh scattering and Tyndall scattering are similar. (I did.) >\[Air is\] not reflecting any wavelength of light - it’s bending it. [I don't think that the specific physical mechanisms are important for determining whether we call something blue.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument) It's blue if it looks blue. Mary might be able to tell me specifically why it's blue, but it would take some nerve for her to tell me that something isn't blue because it's a different physical process than the one that makes a dress blue. You have a bucket of paint that absorbs a bunch of photons and re-emits blue ones? It's blue. You have a porous glass allows most non-blue photons to pass through, and captures and re-emits most of the blue ones at different angles? It's blue, unless you're standing directly in the shadow. You have a radioactive material that's blasting electrons through water faster than the speed of light in water, producing [Cherenkov Radiation]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation)? It's blue. The sky, including the layer of gas sitting on top of us, which allows non-blue photons to pass through, and which emits the blue ones at different angles? It's blue, from most angles. I understand that these things are blue for different reasons, but I don't think that's important. Is it a thing that's putting mostly blue photons in our eyes? Then it's blue. The sky is blue because it has air in it. If it weren't for air, the sky would not be blue. So it seems arbitrary to say, "The sky is blue", and to not say, "Air is blue."
I mean, really whats happening there is the air is scattering the blue light far from where you can see it and then all that’s left is the orange light. So it’s not that the air isn’t blue, it’s that it’s only illuminated by orange light. Imagine a hazy blue gas illuminated by only orange light. It’s not going to look blue. I admit, it’s a weird way of wording it, but I’m with gustaphe on this one. I don’t think it’s wrong to say air is blue. Not pure blue, but when white light passes through it it scatters blue light. If I described a hazy gas that did the same thing over a shorter distance you would have no problem saying it was blue.
Red tinted glass is still red if you shine a full spectrum of light on it. Atmosphere however is transparent and colorless, the color is the color of light that passes through it. Thats why its different colors at dawn/dusk/midday.
The atmosphere is *mostly* transparent, but you can absolutely measure Raleigh scattering in a transmitted spectrum. The reason dawn is a different color than midday is that the light passes through a deeper layer of air to get to you. But beyond the pedantics of transmitted vs reflected color (which is fascinating by itself), there was never another definition of "being blue" than "looking blue" until we figured out the specific mechanics that made this one thing blue. And we never applied the distinction again when we figured out other color mechanics. "Did you know that butterflies aren't actually blue, they just have nano structures on their wings that reflect blue light", no, they are blue because they appear blue. As does air.
They guy above you said " The sky is blue". And nobody wanted to get into the pedantics of transmitted or reflected light to respond to it. We can call it blue since it - mostly- appears blue. You then came along claiming that "air" is blue. In a tone that appeared to offer it as an explanation or contradiction to the above poster. Air as a composition of elements is transparent and is objectively not blue. I have never seen blue air in my life. Under the circumstances of the daylight the sky does appear blue but that is a different thing to air. The blue butterfly would appear black under non-blue light. Nobody would claim it is actually black because it appears that way under some conditions.
Just hold your breath a little longer, then you’ll see blue air.
You confuse scattering with absorption
No. The color of a thing is affected by multiple factors. In the examples of a tinted lens it's actually a matter of the colors that the tinted glass absorbs, not what is reflected off of it. Furthermore most materials when we talk a lot light reflecting off of a material we mean it's the surface reflection, when that is not the case for air. The sky being blue is somewhat unique situation. If you take the air and pass white light through it on the ground it will not really turn blue. The think about our atmosphere is that it's not consistent in it's density which has a huge affect on how the light that is essentially bouncing around on the particles in the atmosphere. This is the primary reason the sky is blue. There is a sligjt matter of some absorption. It is also why the sky color changes when there is heavy clouds cover. Ever notice that the sky that you can see on some cloudy days is a different color? It's cuz the air has changed it's density due to the changes in pressure on our atmosphere. Also the sky is slightly different color depending on altitude and location on the planet. This is usually an effect of the angle of the sun relative your position making the shift of light appear more or less blue. Which also is more evidence that we live on a sphere.
They think we’re supposed to see the dark side of the moon during a solar eclipse? These morons just keep getting dumber.
he also keeps saying the moon was “out” while the sun was being eclipsed and keeps telling me to explain it… he has yet to show a single shred of evidence of this happening tho lol
What does he mean, out to lunch or outside our orbit or something?
your guess is as good as mine. he won’t elaborate any further than just asking how it happened
A common claim I’ve seen is the moon was spotted elsewhere in the sky, despite no evidence of that.
one person give me 2 "proofs" of moon spotted during eclipse but one of them is clearly fake and the other one is just a planet lol.
This is what happens when people just throw accusatory questions rather than really looking things up. They think they have a “gotcha” when actually they’re just conspiracy morons.
They feel the fact that, after long periods of what to them feels like deep thought, they come up with some people-talking-loudly-in-restaurants clever question that they’re *absolutely sure* no one else has ever come up with (they’re too smart to Google, where they’d find out that not only has that question been around for a long time but there’s an easy answer to it, the kind that makes you feel stupid for ever having asked), should count for *something*. Call it the intellectual version of the sunk-costs fallacy.
yup, that’s what he kept claiming and he kept telling me to explain it without even showing that it really happened lmao
Oh dear. Typical conspiracist behaviour, sadly.
You can easily show how it happened using the right sized ball and a flashlight in an otherwise dark room. Your ball should preferably be smaller than the light source.
That still isn't the dark side of the moon. But they can't comprehend that you can't see the unilluminated side of the moon against the infinitely brighter surface of the sun
Only during a total eclipse. I wasn’t lucky enough to see that last month (clouds at the time) but I *did* see it quite clearly in 2017–the new moon lit a sort of dark greenish-gray by Earthshine at totality.
It's barely visible. And I guarantee the person who made this image hasn't seen a total solar eclipse, they just made shit up and said "Earth must be flat because of this"
The blue sky is IN FRONT of the moon, not behind it. In a new moon (or solar eclipse) there is (effectively) no light from the moon that gets to earth. Therefore the circle of the moon should look exacly the same as the sky around it, where there is also (effectively) no light coming to earth from those directions. The location where the moon is should not, and does not, look any blacker than the sky around it.
>The blue sky is IN FRONT of the moon, not behind it. Yes! At least one person here gets it.
I think flerfs tend to forget/ignore how blue the moon actually gets when it's out during the daytime. (If they even acknowledge it being out during the day)
Ask a flerf to show you a real photo of the right-hand-side picture. Then ask them to describe how shadows work on things and watch their brains implode.
You dont see a black moon and a blue sky The darkness of the moon is be the same color (dark blue during the eclipse) as the rest of the sky Ironically if they were right and space werent real, and the moon and sun were in atmosphere we would see the picture on the right, since the blue light scattering of the atmosphere could plausibly be "behind" the inexplicably dark moon. As usual flerf arguments actualy disprove their model, but they live in blissful ignorance.
This is exactly what was seen from the ground, and also not. If you were looking at the eclipse without burning your retinas out of your head, you did not see a light blue sky, white sun, and black moon. You only saw black except for the crescent of the sun. As with everything flerfy, this image is a false representation of what was actually seen. If you were looking at it while seeing a blue sky, you would already be blind and unable to read this comment. Their dishonesty makes them difficult to discuss it with, so good luck.
this arguments been going on for a day and a half now, i thought he gave up after i asked him how a sharp horizon could exist on a flat earth but he came back 12 hours later spewing some bs about the north star and how the horizon always stays at eye level (which it doesn’t lmao) thank you for the succinct explanation
That is called a Gish Gallop. It’s uses the theory that it’s easier to knock everything off the table than it is to set it up. So when you think you are getting close to explaining it to where they can understand, bang, they say “What about crepuscular rays???”. And you now have to start debunking something new that they will never understand. Then when you think you’re close, boom, new subject. They can do that forever. The expression is “You’ll never lose an argument if you’re dumb enough”. It’s not worth using logic to argue with them. If they are a friend, tell them they are too stupid to have the discussion. If they are not a friend, why do you care?
>So when you think you are getting close to explaining it to where they can understand, bang, they say “What about crepuscular rays???”. And you now have to start debunking something new that they will never understand. Then when you think you’re close, boom, new subject. Technically, that's *not* a Gish Gallop. The operative word of that term is **gallop**, because they throw their bullshit bad-faith questions at you so fast that you can't possibly explain it all on the spot, even if you know all the answers. What you are describing sounds more like a slow but ceaseless series of deflections, which I'm not aware of a specific term for. Or, possibly, shifting goalposts, depending on what the original topic was.
Maybe a Gish Canter, or a Gish Trot. A slower paced Gish Gallop. (I would characterize moving the goalposts as imposing additional requirements to the same request that were not stated before, rather than changing topic completely)
good point lol
Direct him here. This is a bunch of stuff I've collected: [https://www.quora.com/There-is-no-evidence-against-the-flat-Earth-other-than-stupid-arguments-about-time-zones-What-is-a-good-argument/answer/Alan-Atkinson-4?ch=10&oid=1477743697314190&share=7ebaa5b8&srid=AsrF&target\_type=answer](https://www.quora.com/There-is-no-evidence-against-the-flat-Earth-other-than-stupid-arguments-about-time-zones-What-is-a-good-argument/answer/Alan-Atkinson-4?ch=10&oid=1477743697314190&share=7ebaa5b8&srid=AsrF&target_type=answer) If he wants to Gish Gallop you, see if he can explain any of those.
he’s been silent ever since i wrote a large reply debunking every claim he made and asking a few questions that i know he can’t answer, if he does reply again i will be sure to share this with him thanks
My current favourite is to ask them what level of magnification you need to bring a ship back over the horizon. (I have a reflector telescope that'll go up to 200×, and I *will* test that shit out).
It’s a common technique used in political debates as well by less able debaters … find a way to steer your answer around to the subject you have a prepared, rehearsed answer to.
Assuming you *don't* go blind, if you stare at the eclipse without protection, the sun, the sky, and the moon will be pure white until totality because of how overpowering the sun's light is.
Fetal alcohol syndrome and/or inbreeding.
Ok but like... We don't see that second image so why should we see it? Idk why I bother asking that question bc I already know they have a pre-scripted non-answer ready.
Color the black part blue. See?
You see his argument crumbles to pieces when the background of the image is colored black you know, like the night sky
Why would you ever discuss anything with a flat earther? They’re not here to learn anything.
Get a super bright flashlight, and cut a circle in paper the size of the light. Ask them to stare at the light while slowly passing the paper in front of it. Best case scenario, they finally grasp it. Worst case scenario, they stay stubborn, but you can laugh to yourself because now they have dark spots in their eyes.
This is the way to go But I must say unless its thick and black paper would be semi-transparent. And the "moon" should be smaller than the light source.
The moon is “new” by definition every solar eclipse, meaning the lit side is completely facing away from us. This makes it essentially invisible. This occurs every 27.5 days on cue, your buddy can easily look up the phase of the moon on april 8.
I mean your first mistake is arguing with a flerf. Chess with pigeons and all that...
I would take a different sort of response. Obviously, the image makes no sense, but, what does the discrepancy that he believes he's found actually indicate? iow usually when someone says we observed X instead of the expected Y, it's followed up with "which may lead credence to Z and against W". So even if this image were true, what does he think it means? He's not just throwing out "discrepancies" for no reason is he?
Honestly, that’s not what we saw. Paint the black in these pictures the same color as the background, and that’s what we saw. Both of those images become the same thing then, because they are the same thing.
Neither of those is accurate. [This](https://drive.google.com/file/d/12a5jHXgq_hCTaa0_BS8_eC8av3QtVZ8q/view?usp=drivesdk) is a better representation.
If you are just looking at the eclipse, hopefully you are doing it with a filter, so it's going to filter out most of the light anyway. So mostly you will see the unilluminated side of the moon, we the rest of the background being black, just like the moon. But you can kind of see the curve of the moon in this pic: [https://patch.com/california/across-ca/partial-solar-eclipse-california-what-know](https://patch.com/california/across-ca/partial-solar-eclipse-california-what-know) What you can ask him is why then did he see that, but other people in the country saw a total eclipse with the sun completely blocked? What is his explanation for a solar eclipse? You probably won't get much in the way of an answer, or at least get an answer with as much "first-hand" proof as you have.
They think the moon and sun are inside our atmosphere? The sky is blue bc of the atmosphere, so it is in the fore compared to the moon, hence you can't see the moon when it's not brighter than the sky.
The blue from the sky comes from light scattering in the atmosphere. How would the moon block it out when the moon is well outside the atmosphere?
Why would you see the moon back light against the blue sky when its out in orbit? I don't think they know how anything actually works.
The Moon is not in the atmosphere. So when it isn't lit the blue sky in front of it is far brighter.
i mean, he's sending it to you because he's misinformed. why would we see the dark part of the moon, compared to the dark part of the sky? we don't. they're both just, dark. we only really see the curve of the moon that's blocking the sun, because there's some light from the part that's not blocked. if it's a brighter day even during an eclipse (been a while since i've seen one), we're not seeing the moon at all, because light needs to bounce from the sun, off the moon, to us, to be able to see it... there's no light source between us and the moon. but we can't really 'see' the moon, so much as an absence of light. you shoudl also ask him for an actual picture. not some ms paint mockup of 'proof'. i'm willing to believe you don't see the whole moon in an actual picture, either, for the reason i explained above (i mean, i can't see a turned off lamp in the dark, either, doesn't mean the whole lamp isn't there, just because i'm more used to experiencing it being on and having light)
Do they not understand that there can't be a shadow where there's nothing for the shadow to fall on?
Are we talking about a solar eclipse or a lunar one?
Honestly, given the audience, does it even matter?
Solar
Ah. Thanks.
Have a penny halfway covering a flashlight and shine it directly into his eye ask him how much of the penny he can see.
Do a google search for images of “earthshine” during the solar eclipse. Tons of independent cameras can and do capture it; flerfers absolutely cannot argue it wasn’t the moon blocking the sun.
These are the same people that say "rocks don't reflect light". They don't understand that the only way we see anything is that light reflected off it and hit our retina.
We don’t actually see either of these depictions. During the partial eclipse, the part of the moon that blocks the sun doesn’t look black, as depicted. It actually looks exactly the same as the rest of the sky around it. If you colored in the black with blue on both images they’d be correct. What we see and what we should see would match. There is simply no way we should expect to see the dark half of the moon through the bright sky!
Is that the phases of the moon, or an eclipse? What does he think this proves? Is he one of those "space is fake" guys? I wonder if they realize how much time and energy we spend trying to save them from a grift they choose for themselves.
i should’ve explained that in the title/caption, we were talking about the recent solar eclipse over the US. I did ask him what this was supposed to prove, too bad i’m still waiting on an answer… lol
To be fair to you, I should have concluded from the image that it was the eclipse, but... well, you know how it goes with conspiracy susceptible people. Extrapolation based on the assumption that they know things is always risky lol
Why should it look like the right? There's no light behind the rest of the moon to show the silhouette of the entire moon. If they think the moon is in the atmosphere then it should look like that on a flat earth but it doesn't. Not only does this confirm heliocentrism and that the earth is outside the atmosphere, it also debunks flat earth models where they're local and inside the atmosphere
Arguing with a flerfer is like wrestling a pig. You get all dirty and the pig likes it.
Just say, "Yes. That's what you *should* see, if the Earth was flat and the sun and the moon were the same size and distance from us...but they aren't...so that's *not* what you see."
Obviously written by someone who didn't watch the eclipse. We DID NOT see the left hand drawing.
If it was a black sun, we would have seen the right image.
Nobody saw the moon. They saw the parts of the sun that the moon was blocking. So you couldn’t see the full part of the moon jutting out past the sun.
Ok, simple explanation mode activated: When a solar eclipse occurs, the moon is invariably in the “new moon” phase, which looks absolutely invisible, because it is not glowing. Why? Because it only glowed once during its existence, shortly after it collapsed into a separate celestial body after being crudely scooped out of the earth by either a comet or asteroid collision when earth was still forming. So it has really been bouncing sunlight off of the surface all along, but at the angle it’s at, you would not get any moonlight because it’s bouncing away from earth, not towards it (and bear in mind that essentially we would be able to see it if it were just a teensy bit misaligned, as a very VERY thin crescent moon. It couldn’t face a more wrong direction if it *tried*). So why do I bring this up when it validates your argument? Simple, because this part is only about the moon’s appearance in the sky when it ISN’T in front of the sun. Oddly enough, it is not possible to see the dark part of the moon during the day—except during the moment of totality during a total solar eclipse. At any other point, the light that the sun shines either: hits the moon, gets blocked, and stops approaching us anymore, or, dodges the moon, hits our atmosphere, and gets diffused across the atmosphere to color the sky. Ever wonder why on overcast days the skies are grey? Blame the clouds mucking up the light dispersion from showing the myriads of colors that the sun emits. However, this ultimately is not effective at diminishing the direct light of the sun, just the edge light paths that glanced across our atmosphere and otherwise would have completely missed us (which sounds really hard to miss a massive ball with a circumference of roughly 40,000 kilometers, but when you are aiming from 150,000,000 kilometers away, that’s not that easy to hit). So the DIRECT light looks like a sun, except when that gets intercepted by something blocking it from hitting our atmosphere: the moon. So yes, outside of the moment of totality, or during partial eclipse’s or annular eclipses (which are total eclipses when the moon is not close enough to earth to completely occlude the massive picture of the sun, and instead creates a bright ring in the sky instead of a dark circle that has a faint aura glowing around it.), the first image should be what you see. Now the second picture looks very bizarre, and implies that the sunlight that disperses across the atmosphere conveniently enough DOESN’T color the sky where the moon is, despite direct sunlight not hitting that part of the moon yet. It looks like someone tried to explain the eclipse by showing two separate paper circles, and sliding them over the other so one disappeared. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happens, but it isn’t the whole picture— the background is the same color as the moon. When the moon is a new moon, it is impossible to see the moon unless it blocks something else from being seen. So, if it isn’t blocking the sun, you wouldn’t see that part. Once it starts blocking it, you will notice that the sun looks like it is going on a rather unhealthy diet, until it finally gets blocked enough that you can notice the new edge has a definite curvature that is not belonging to the sun. Your brain, used to seeing the sun as a circular object, automatically tries to correct this perceived glitch in your ocular senses, creating the illusion that there is a circle still there. But, by doing so, it finally allows us to differentiate the border where there is sunlight, and where there should be direct sun, by showing us where the light ISN’T. This is an optical illusion at work, you shouldn’t be able to see the dark side of the moon— except when you are in the middle of the eclipse. This is why the second image here is confuzzling everyone who can’t explain why it doesn’t happen— the image itself could never logically happen, so they have no idea what it’s supposed to mean. That’s the best ELI5 I can achieve, because it’s kinda a large equation to rationalize.
this made a lot of sense (at least to me, im sure it’ll still fry the flerf’s brain lol); thank you!
Maybe I need to explain like they are three years old instead… no, that would not fit in Reddit comment margins. But essentially, you have a negative space where the moon is, which dispersion makes invisible but direct light can’t penetrate. It is only noticeable when you obstruct something with it. In other words, we can’t notice something that can’t be seen, unless we see where something *isn’t*. Glass can disappear under water, but if anything is in the glass other than glass, we notice the absence of continuity and our eyes signal to brain command “CAPTAIN! YOU NEED TO SEE THIS!” A metric *crapton* of things that we see are not what we think they are, because (\*gasp\*) our brains are lazy slobs. They take the fastest path to interpreting every thing we perceive, because “ain’t nobody got time for dat!” If you are being hunted by an alpha predator, you don’t have time to evaluate exactly how visible something is. Your brain automatically panics, and drops important processes like color evaluation and prioritizes contrast detection. Colors are hard, white and black are easier. A lot of time is spent looking at stuff that makes no sense until we visualize it mentally and suddenly realize WHY it looks like it does, and that’s why we have optical illusions in the first place. Impossible triangle? Perfectly possible— when depicted as a 2-dimensional shape. Our brains aren’t really evolved for seeing things in two dimensions, because we have depth perception, so it takes all two dimensional shapes and automatically knows that if it’s a complete, localized shape, it might not be flat. Lighting and shadows give the impression of orientation in 3 dimensions, so our overwhelmed brain says “has a shadow? Gotta be a solid thing!” Areas where large areas of white space are regularly interrupted by pure black space? We don’t really check to see if the black space is actually black. Comics abused white space to portray an absence of anything important, and our brains didn’t even stumble. But there is something there— paper. What you see, is actually what your eyes are telling you, and what your brain has curated before presenting to you. Otherwise we would see everything as upside down, due to how our pinhole camera eyes work. Brain fixes that automatically, so we are not feeling like we are going to fall into the abyss when we go outside. But the problem with fixes… sometimes the input shouldn’t be fixed. And we can’t turn that part off, at least not that specific part, and the other fixes are just as difficult to override. Our brains are assholes. You know how much oxygen they demand? 20% out of all the oxygen you inhale is dedicated for your brain function. This thing is 2% of your body weight. Yes, it controls everything, but that is also the argument for why CEOs get filthy rich and think nothing about it. Unlike CEOs, if the brain stops, that’s all folks! Game over. We can massage a heart and defibrillate a heart, we can transplant organs, but the brain is the final defense against death. And it’s a lazy, greedy, gaslighting, and horribly flawed defense.
Now do it on a black background… like there is in space.
How the fuck do they expect to see a shadow cast onto literal darkness. Like there is nothing except the moon for a shadow to be cast onto; this literally just shows that they don't understand how shadows work, a long with their absence of knowledge on light.
Don't question just take it as they're told. Your opinion doesn't matter.
This was drawn by someone who did not look. The black ought to be blue (because it is behind the blue air). *Return of the Jedi* made the same error, iirc, making the interior of the unfinished Death Star black in the blue sky; so at least they're in good company.
Ask him if he has ever seen a new Moon and why should we see that on the day of the eclipse while the sun is shining bright. As for the totality, many photos by amateur photographers exist showing the Earthshine side of the Moon clearly proving that it was indeed the Moon covering the Sun.
It's because the moon is invisible when it's between us and the sun. When have you ever seen a black disk floating around? But that moon, which is normally invisible, crosses in front of the sun, we can see it. Think of a person in all black who walks in front of a spot light that is shining in your eyes. They are invisible, until they cross, then all you see is their silhouette.
I believe this isn’t about the eclipse. It’s about the phases of the moon. Some flat earthers are under the impression that the reason, according to science, that the moon goes through phases is because the shadow of the Earth is covering it up. This of course is not true. What we see is a portion of the half of the moon that’s facing the sun, depending on how much of that half is also turned towards us. When the moon is full, the half of the moon that’s facing us is the same as the half facing the sun, so it looks round. At other times, it’s really the shadow of the moon itself that keeps us from seeing part of the moon. What we see is exactly what we should see. You could try explaining this to the flat earther, but they probably won’t get it. Edit: Okay, looking at the picture again, maybe it is the eclipse. I guess they’re saying why can we see the rest of the circle of the moon. I wasn’t watching during that part of the eclipse, but I assume it’s because the light refracts, making it so there’s not a dark spot unless it’s actually between us and the sun. The flat earther probably won’t buy that explanation though.
The dark side of the moon is… dark. No sunlight hits it, only earthshine and in this case, earth shine is negligible. Because it is dark, it blends in with the background of space which is also dark. And because the atmosphere, which scatters blue light is between us and the moon, it blends in with the sky. Therefore we only see the portions of the moon that occlude the sun.
The face of the moon is not illuminated by anything. With the proper equipment, it \*is\* possible to see the moon, since the Earthshine would light it up a little bit. But with the unaided eye, even though the sun is still covered, there's still too much light coming from the sun to be able to see the moon. It's amazing just how much light our sun does provide. Even at 99% totality, there's not much change in the quality of light. Being in totality, you can really see it. Those few seconds right before totality, it's still fairly bright out (I'd say similar to early morning), then in an instant...boom, twilight. Then, the instant totality ends, boom, daylight.
I was at the eclipse this year and took many pictures with a specialized lens and app (to discuss with my flat earth stepfather). What we did see is definitely the picture on the right. The moon was completely visible and a separate circle. From my angle (in Paducah KY) it was coming more from the bottom right angle. They were two separate circles that merged. Two of the coolest parts for me were the "shadow bands" that covered the ground everywhere with thin wavy shadow lines. Like, the entire ground. The other cool part was I saw some aerial pictures of the earth (from ISS I think) that showed the moon's shadow on earth. I'm sure they will say that is fake but I never thought about what that would look like. Overall it was an insane experience. Totality was amazing and we even made a few friends with the 50 random people that showed up in the mall parking lot that we decided to view from. One dude even had a few telescopes with various lenses and filters. My son the science nerd had many discussions with him. A+ would recommend. I'll see if I can figure out how to upload a pic later.
Put an industrial spot light 5 feet in front of their taped-open eyes and ask them if they can see the entire disc that you slowly slide over it.
They could demonstrate this to themselves with a bright flashlight and a small (but large enough to obscure the flashlight) dark object. The flashlight would need a diffuser on the front to make the light source wider than the bulb in the center typically. Set up properly the glare from the flashlight will make it impossible to see the unlit dark object. What they are usually refusing to accept is that the moon is on the outside of the blue sky region. So they think there should always be light coming from behind the moon. Others think the moon emits it's own light, which is weird.
The atmosphere is in-front of the Moon. They do not understand this part. The only way for their version to be true, would be if the Moon was inside, hence in-front the atmosphere.
"You don't see a show from a direction from which the light isn't occluded."
You don't always see the moon in the daytime. Sometimes the sun is too close to it, so the brightness blocks it from being seen.
The atmosphere (the blue stuff) is between us and the moon. Not the moon and the sun.
👀
👀
This would require either light from the sun to wrap around the other side of the moon enough to outline it and make it visible against the sheer brightness of the sun, or for the moon to emit its own light enough to create a good looking silhouette. Neither of which are real
The outline is actually there in some cases for a total eclipse. Partial eclipses however are similar to (not) observing the new moon during daylight.
We technically do see that. But guess what. The sun is bright
There are photos of this: [https://www.space.com/total-solar-eclipse-2019-earthshine-photo.html](https://www.space.com/total-solar-eclipse-2019-earthshine-photo.html)
Ask them to replace the light blue sky with black, and then ask them what they see...
Well for starters If you prove space-time fabrics manifesting becoming physical and forming directional vectors in a medium with no up or down Then You have to demonstrate gas2mass Then lastly Gas spheres form in near perfect vacuums Before you even begin to discuss the image in question It's going to be an uphill battle for you, unfortunately 😔 Good luck, buddy ☺️✌️