https://youtu.be/TuKsMlANPxk?si=JqXZ7QwOQEQDExSUThis 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.
[ + ] Thought_Criminal
[ - ] Thought_Criminal 4 points 1.7 yearsSep 11, 2023 23:28:55 ago (+4/-0)
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
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 00:32:44 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] i_scream_trucks
[ - ] i_scream_trucks 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 01:54:07 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 04:24:05 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 01:20:57 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 04:22:42 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 04:38:51 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:07:13 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 12:29:06 ago (+1/-0)
The two poles in the night sky are not.
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
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 15:52:16 ago (+1/-1)
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
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 15:55:23 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 16:07:40 ago (+1/-0)
You asked me how what was possible?
What do the southern star trails over Australia have to do with the government or institutions, flattard?
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 16:13:26 ago (+1/-1)
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?
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
[ - ] chrimony 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 16:24:31 ago (+1/-0)
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".
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.
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
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 20:32:29 ago (+1/-1)
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.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 4 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 06:25:19 ago (+5/-1)*
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
[ - ] McNasty [op] -1 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 09:16:19 ago (+2/-3)
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
[ - ] observation1 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:04:53 ago (+2/-1)
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
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:09:07 ago (+2/-2)
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
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:15:20 ago (+1/-1)
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
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:21:01 ago (+1/-1)
I provided an experiment that proves my point. You've provided nothing. Stop projecting.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:28:47 ago (+1/-0)
Here you go, my low IQ friend:
https://pic8.co/sh/BvxMOv.jpg
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:31:54 ago (+2/-1)
The fact you think imagination is reality says a lot. Just show me the experiment like I showed you mine.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:33:11 ago (+2/-1)
The video I already posted points this out.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:44:31 ago (+1/-1)
Genuinely curious what you think it would look like.
A square?
Please entertain me.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:52:41 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:54:10 ago (+2/-1)
A ball cannot cast a curved shadow onto another ball. You keep telling me to imagine it does.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 12:13:01 ago (+2/-1)
No. I already proved it wouldn't.
[ + ] Hand_Of_Node
[ - ] Hand_Of_Node 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 10:59:30 ago (+1/-1)
Flatters need some entertainment value to be worth engaging.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 11:03:08 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Hand_Of_Node
[ - ] Hand_Of_Node 2 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 13:19:56 ago (+2/-0)
You say that after posting that dishonest bullshit video? lol
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 15:48:35 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Hand_Of_Node
[ - ] Hand_Of_Node 2 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 19:00:47 ago (+2/-0)
The link I posted explains exactly how the video flatter is either mentally retarded, or intentionally lying.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsSep 12, 2023 20:14:55 ago (+1/-1)
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.