☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules
-1

This experiment is the equivalent of seeing the picture of Auschwitz with a chimney not even attached to it. There's no answer for this, but kikes will insist there's nothing of importance here.

submitted by McNasty to SPACEisFAKEandGAY 7 monthsSep 11, 2023 21:16:41 ago (+7/-8)     (SPACEisFAKEandGAY)

https://youtu.be/TuKsMlANPxk?si=JqXZ7QwOQEQDExSU

This experiment proves that either a, The moon is not a sphere, or b, The earth is not casting its shadow on the moon during an eclipse.

There's absolutely no other explanation.

Lol. I see I got my auto 4 downvotes but not a single comment explaining the impossibility that the earth could cast a curved shadow onto the moon.


44 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] observation1 4 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 06:25:19 ago (+5/-1)*

Proportions are off.

Re-run the experiment with a basketball and a tennis ball. The tennis ball positioned 24 feet away, and the light source 1.6 miles away from basketball. Use candles or natural lighting, instead of flashlight. If you only have flashlights then stack them 21 meters high.

Dont have 1.6 miles?

If we shrank the Earth to the size of a tennis ball, the moon would be the size of a marble about 6 feet away. The light source is 7 football fields away (and 21 feet tall if using flashlights).

By using a micro-scaled single beam flashlight you are artificially missing out on the umbra that would exist if the sun was to scale. Meaning, it doesn't mimick the partial shadow and full shadow.

https://cdn.britannica.com/30/91230-050-16EFD5BA/eclipse-Moon-sun-Earth.jpg

[ - ] McNasty [op] -1 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 09:16:19 ago (+2/-3)

Dont have 1.6 miles?

I already provided an experiment that proves my point. As of right now, It's impossible for a ball to cast a curved shadow onto another ball. It's also impossible for the shadow to come from above on a selenelion eclipse. You can't claim refraction is flipping the image because we can see the moon isn't inverted.

So for your ball to work, I have to believe the impossibility of a ball casting a curved shadow onto another ball. I have to believe that refraction allows me to see both the sun and moon above the horizon during an eclipse. There's nothing explaining that selenelion shadow from above.

So if you have an experiment they can answer all these questions, show me, don't tell me.

[ - ] observation1 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:04:53 ago (+2/-1)

It's impossible for a ball to cast a curved shadow onto another ball

It isnt just "any" curved surface. What matters is how deeply curved the surface is related to the diameter of the shadow cast (and from how big of a light source.)

The shadow distortion depends entirely on the proportions of dimensions.

In your video they are doing a ridiculous 1:1 ratio

Read: Theyre casting an earth-sized shadow on an earth-sized moon (with a moon-sized sun.)

Read that twice.

The shadow is curved but the radical curvature of the ball distorts it to look straight from the perspective of an omnipresent astronaut (with the luxary of a backdrop.)

A marble sized (few cm) moon, 6 ft away, with (say) 3 flashlights angled on a tennis ball mimicking light coming in from a solar surface (21 feet tall, 7 football fields away) tells a much different story.

Why cant flat earthers think in proportion? This is the 2nd time Ive had to point out to you absurd proportions causes a failed experiment.

Saying this is representative of every shadow of every curved surface is akin to saying you measured your brain, and concluded all brains must be peanut sized.

Face it, your brain in shit for you to think its appropriate to use the curvature of earth-sized moon to offset an equal circumference shadow.

Thats because you have shit for brains.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:09:07 ago (+2/-2)

It isnt just "any" curved surface.

Every experiment I've tried says it's impossible. All you have is thought exercises. I'm not interested in those. Link me an experiment.

[ - ] observation1 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:15:20 ago (+1/-1)

All you have is thought exercises.

Spoken like a true flat earther with shit for brains.

Take a basketball in your hand. Hold a quarter up to it a few inches away

Et voila, youve just magically cast a curved shadow on a curved surface.

The very thing you claimed would be impossible.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:21:01 ago (+1/-1)

Spoken like a true flat earther with shit for brains.

I provided an experiment that proves my point. You've provided nothing. Stop projecting.

[ - ] observation1 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:28:47 ago (+1/-0)

The fact that you lack the ability to imagine a quarter sized shadow on a basketball, is telling.

Here you go, my low IQ friend:

https://pic8.co/sh/BvxMOv.jpg

[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:31:54 ago (+2/-1)

The fact that you lack the ability to imagine

The fact you think imagination is reality says a lot. Just show me the experiment like I showed you mine.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:33:11 ago (+2/-1)

Lol. Holy fuck you are dumb. That picture is a 2d picture of the moon you retard. It helps my case.

The video I already posted points this out.

[ - ] observation1 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:44:31 ago (+1/-1)

You lack the ability to comprehend this shadow would still be round on a basketball?

Genuinely curious what you think it would look like.

A square?

Please entertain me.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:52:41 ago (+2/-1)

You linked a 2d image of the moon with the shadow of a ball on it. You are retarded. Imagination is all you got.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:54:10 ago (+2/-1)

You lack the ability to comprehend this shadow would still be round on a basketball

A ball cannot cast a curved shadow onto another ball. You keep telling me to imagine it does.
Continue thread

[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 12:13:01 ago (+2/-1)

You lack the ability to comprehend this shadow would still be round on a basketball?

No. I already proved it wouldn't.
Continue thread

[ - ] Thought_Criminal 4 points 7 monthsSep 11, 2023 23:28:55 ago (+4/-0)

Thank you for posting this. This one is clearly and provably incorrect.
That straight line on the ball is only due to perspective... it is on a globe/ball.

If they dropped the camera to the bottom of the ball they are holding, instead of the top of the ball, from that lower perspective there is a curved shadow.

This proves nothing in relation to Earth or Luna, only their ball fondling.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 00:32:44 ago (+2/-1)

Show me a ball making a curved shadow on another ball. Not jewish excuses as to why the chimney not being attached to the building doesn't mean anything.

[ - ] i_scream_trucks 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 01:54:07 ago (+1/-0)

Show us evidence of your claim first. This isn't it.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 04:24:05 ago (+2/-2)

I did. It's the video I posted retard. Anyone can take a flashlight and two basketballs and figure this out.

[ - ] Hand_Of_Node 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 10:59:30 ago (+1/-1)

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/top-10-flat-earth-theory-proof/

Flatters need some entertainment value to be worth engaging.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:03:08 ago (+2/-1)

Well, you're engaging anyway. You're just doing it dishonesty because you have an agenda.

[ - ] Hand_Of_Node 2 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 13:19:56 ago (+2/-0)

You're just doing it dishonesty

You say that after posting that dishonest bullshit video? lol

[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 15:48:35 ago (+1/-1)

The video is an experiment that anybody with two basketballs and a flashlight can do. It's 100% proof a ball cannot cast a curved shadow onto another ball. You're a dishonest kike. So I expect this conversation to go just like a Holocaust thread on Reddit.

[ - ] Hand_Of_Node 2 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 19:00:47 ago (+2/-0)

It's 100% proof a ball cannot cast a curved shadow onto another ball.

The link I posted explains exactly how the video flatter is either mentally retarded, or intentionally lying.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 20:14:55 ago (+1/-1)

The link I posted explains exactly how the video flatter is either mentally retarded, or intentionally lying.

So. I can link you a video explaining exactly how the Holocaust was real. Remember, you're on voat. You glow like a fucker the way you argue. Give me a real world experiment that can be performed. Give me an example of it being performed. Why do you want kike privilege in explaining something? I expect actual evidence, not wishful thinking.

[ - ] chrimony 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 01:20:57 ago (+2/-2)

Two poles on spherical Earth, one pole in Flattard Land. Southern star trails in Australia are the simplest and largest demonstration writ large in the night sky that you're a retard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56ZMZtq0qfY

[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 04:22:42 ago (+2/-1)

Hey dumb fuck, I don't care about your paper with lines drawn on it. Quit being a bitch and address the video in my post you faggot.

[ - ] chrimony 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 04:38:51 ago (+1/-0)

The night sky is paper with lines drawn on it? Flattards always good for a laugh. Two poles on a spherical Earth, one in Flattard Land.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 11:07:13 ago (+2/-1)

No. That's what I'm trying to tell you. The lines are arbitrary. Now stick to the video.

[ - ] chrimony 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 12:29:06 ago (+1/-0)

The lines are arbitrary.

The two poles in the night sky are not.

Now stick to the video.

You have an endless series of flattard phenomena that you demand an answer to, which when you receive the answer, you will immediately dismiss, and then move on to the next one. Meanwhile, you can't explain something as simple and fundamental as the night sky.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 15:52:16 ago (+1/-1)

The two poles in the night sky are not.

There are no poles in the night sky. There is magnetic north. Now explain how a lunar eclipse works when it's impossible for a ball to cast a curb shadow onto another ball? Or do the kike thing and ignore my question.

[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 15:55:23 ago (+1/-1)

I asked you how it was possible. You gave kike speak and called it proof. You're on voat. You faggot have to know how obvious it is. This is the only subject that we take government and institution at their word? We see you kike? Oh you have proof? A professor in physics at a university told you the world is a ball. Is this classroom right beside the one that tells everybody that boys can be girls and girls can be boys?

[ - ] chrimony 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 16:07:40 ago (+1/-0)

I asked you how it was possible.

You asked me how what was possible?

This is the only subject that we take government and institution at their word?

What do the southern star trails over Australia have to do with the government or institutions, flattard?

[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 16:13:26 ago (+1/-1)

You asked me how what was possible?


My post. How is it possible for the Earth to cast its shadow onto the moon if it is impossible for a ball to cast a curved shadow onto another ball?

What do the southern star trails over Australia have to do with the government or institutions, flattard?

Because they are telling you we live on a ball. When I was 5 years old I remember asking why the same stars remain in the same spot relative to each other forever. It didn't make sense to me then, but I pretended like I understood because I was 5 and didn't know any better.

If you would look into actual flat earthers and their channels that they use to explain all these things, you would see that your vision works exactly like that. Because of vanishing point goes to a point. Like Play two rails on a railroad will look like they converge. The stars exist as a blanket above the earth. They have no depth. You'll never see parallax between stars because there is no depth. But the further away something is, the narrower the angle. This angle converges at a point. That point will appear like the south pole to you.

[ - ] chrimony 1 point 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 16:24:31 ago (+1/-0)

My post. How is it possible for the Earth to cast its shadow onto the moon if it is impossible for a ball to cast a curved shadow onto another ball?

You assume it's impossible based on one experiment using two balls of the same size at a particular distance from a particular light source, which are not at all similar to the scale of the sun, earth, and moon. So, not "impossible".

Because they are telling you we live on a ball.

Lulz, the star trails over Australia are telling me I live on a ball? That's just basic evidence writ large in the night sky, flattard.

If you would look into actual flat earthers and their channels that they use to explain all these things, you would see that your vision works exactly like that. Because of vanishing point goes to a point. Like Play two rails on a railroad will look like they converge. The stars exist as a blanket above the earth. They have no depth. You'll never see parallax between stars because there is no depth. But the further away something is, the narrower the angle. This angle converges at a point. That point will appear like the south pole to you.

Quoted your flattard gibberish for posterity. All you have to do is show a working model using geometry and light. Should be easy, right? I mean if the globists can do it, certainly the all-explaining flattards can, right?

[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 7 monthsSep 12, 2023 20:32:29 ago (+1/-1)

You assume it's impossible based on one experiment using two balls of the same size at a particular distance from a particular light source

I posted an experiment that proves my point. You posted nothing. I swear arguing with you is like arguing with reddit kikes. I don't care about your wishful thinking. Either show me the experiment that can prove your point or shut the fuck up already.
Continue thread