For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?

This is for the SE out there, can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area from a single light source?

You might ask why?

Because the moon casted a shadow of only 70 miles in diameter last August in the eclipse. Since the moons diameter is supposedly 2000 miles, then, Huston we have a problem!!!!

But there will be a bunch of “scientist” out there, that will try to confuses everybody with mumbo jumbo, so let’s make it simple.

Instead of writing your garbage, how about you take a photo of the shadow of a solid with of a single light source and show that its shadow is smaller than its cross section area that is perpendicular?

Simple question, deserves a simple photo!

As long as the light source if 400 times the radius of the object casting the shadow, I think your experiment has merit.

This is for the SE out there, can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area from a single light source?

You might ask why?

Because the moon casted a shadow of only 70 miles in diameter last August in the eclipse. Since the moons diameter is supposedly 2000 miles, then, Huston we have a problem!!!!

I don't see a problem.
If the light source, the 1.39 million km diameter sun, is larger the moon, the umbra (or dark part of the shadow) is always smaller than the shadowing object, the moon.

Look at this diagram:

That should make it completely obvious that

• if the light source size is greater than the size of the object, then the umbra is smaller than the size of your object,
• if the light source size is equal in size to the object, then the umbra is equal in size to the object and
• if the light source size is less than the size of the object, then the umbra is greater than the size of the object.

If you disagree, show how on the flat earth, with the sun and moon both about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high,
show how we can get solar eclipses all the way from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse with an umbra ranging up to 150 km wide at the equator to over 1000 km wide at the poles.

In your figure, not a photo, but a man made figure, shows that the sun rays at an angle.

Question 1: Is the sun a sphere?
Answer 1: Yes

Question 2: Does the light travel in a straight path?
Answer 2: Yes

Question 3: Is the sun light perpendicular to the surface area of the Sun?
Answer 1: Yes

Question 4: If all the above answers are yes, then why would the sunlight bend in order to have an inner angle ?

Look at the below figure



https://imgur.com/a/dsnlY

Every spot on Sun surface radiates light on its own, in all directions.
Dashed lines in the diagram show layout of stereoscopic edges/limits of importance.

Every spot on Sun surface radiates light on its own, in all directions.
Dashed lines in the diagram show layout of stereoscopic edges/limits of importance.

If this is the case, then why do all the science book teach that the seasons are based upon the Earth axis tilt AND THEY ALWAYS SHOW THE SUN RAISE TO BE PERPENDICULAR to the Earth, except when they want to explain eclipses, then the sun's raise are not perpendicular to the Earth.

If the light travels in all directions, then we should have the same season all year long, because the tilt would not matter!!!

Answer this, are the sun raise perpendicular to the Earth or not?

Quote from: Macarios on January 30, 2018, 02:32:38 AM

Every spot on Sun surface radiates light on its own, in all directions.
Dashed lines in the diagram show layout of stereoscopic edges/limits of importance.

If this is the case, then why do all the science book teach that the seasons are based upon the Earth axis tilt AND THEY ALWAYS SHOW THE SUN RAISE TO BE PERPENDICULAR to the Earth, except when they want to explain eclipses, then the sun's raise are not perpendicular to the Earth.

If the light travels in all directions, then we should have the same season all year long, because the tilt would not matter!!!

Answer this, are the sun raise perpendicular to the Earth or not?

The bundle of sun rays hitting particular part of Earth's surface consists of rays coming from all spots of the Sun.
Every spot of the Earth's surface part receives rays from every spot of Sun's surface.
When the Sun is higher in the sky, axis of the bundle is closer to local vertical.

EDIT: The light distribution described above is used as explanation of seasons in Flat Earth model as well.
Hold piece of paper at about two yards in front of your monitor.
Every spot on the paper will receive light from every pixel on the screen.

Every spot of the Earth's surface part receives rays from every spot of Sun's surface.

Do we get light from the back side of the sun also?

When the Sun is higher in the sky, axis of the bundle is closer to local vertical.

Did not answer the question.

Light travels in a straight line.

The light that passes the moon, will not bend, put remain straight.

Do we get light from the back side of the sun also?

If we see the back side of the sun, it is because light from there finds the way to our eyes.
If we can't see it, then the light doesn't come from there.

Quote

When the Sun is higher in the sky, axis of the bundle is closer to local vertical.

Did not answer the question.
Light travels in a straight line.
The light that passes the moon, will not bend, put remain straight.

Ofcourse.
What is the question here?

What is the connection between seasons and moon shadow?
Between:
- angle of the sun rays when the sun is higher or lower in the sky, and
- position of the sun behind the moon?

Let's keep it simple, show me a photo of the shadow of a solid with of a single light source and show that its shadow is smaller than its cross section area that is perpendicular?

Simple question, deserves a simple photo!

These are the only photos I found






show me your photos!!!!!!!!!

In your figure, not a photo, but a man made figure, shows that the sun rays at an angle.

Which is quite correct, see note under Question 3.

Question 1: Is the sun a sphere?
Answer 1: Yes

Question 2: Does the light travel in a straight path?
Answer 2: Yes

Question 3: Is the sun light perpendicular to the surface area of the Sun?
Answer 1: Yes

No! Every point on the sun radiates in every direction.

Question 4: If all the above answers are yes, then why would the sunlight bend in order to have an inner angle ?

They are not. the answer to Question 3 should have been no!

Look at the below figure


https://imgur.com/a/dsnlY

Your figure, also not a photo, but a man-made figure, shows that the sun rays radiating only perpendicular to the surface.
Only a point light source inside a transparent spherical envelope would behave like that.

So, that is the problem with your original claim.

Question 3 should of read

Question 3: Is the sun light perpendicular to the cross section area of the object?
Answer 1: Yes

Show me your photo of a shadow that is smaller than the cross section area with 1 light source

As we all said, to make shadow smaller than the casting object, you need light source bigger than the object.

Not a single light source, but 4 florescent bulbs (time 1:58).

I have said 1 light source, not 4.

The sun is 1 light source, not 4

The sun does not have a diffuser plate.

If you want to place a diffuser plate, it should be between the cap and the table, not between the cap and the light source.

Photo please, and make it with sunlight, since we are talking about sunlight

Not a single light source, but 4 florescent bulbs (time 1:58).

I have said 1 light source, not 4.

The sun is 1 light source, not 4

The sun does not have a diffuser plate.

If you want to place a diffuser plate, it should be between the cap and the table, not between the cap and the light source.

Photo please, and make it with sunlight, since we are talking about sunlight

And what difference does it make if the source is 1, 4 or hundreds of sub-light sources.
Each piece if the sun's surface is a separate radiating element anyway.

If you don't accept that result, tough cheese - it changes nothing!

But, you've been clearly wrong so many other times, what does it matter if you are wrong again.

In any case, you still have an impossible task of explaining how your 50 km sun and a 50 km moon can cause the eclipses we observe.

If you have two light sources, then you can have shadows that are smaller than the cross section area on an object. To that I will agree.

If you have more light sources between those two, you still have shadow smaller than object.

If you have more light sources between those two, you still have shadow smaller than object.

YES, but between the Earth, Moon and Sun we only have 1 major light source, not Two!!!

Quote from: Macarios on January 30, 2018, 05:16:44 AM

If you have more light sources between those two, you still have shadow smaller than object.

YES, but between the Earth, Moon and Sun we only have 1 major light source, not Two!!!

That light source is big surface, much bigger than moon and earth, with every spot emiting light.

It's 1 source that is in phase with the light.

It's 1 source that is in phase with the light.

"In phase"?
Two, three or more diferent frequencies can be in phase only occasionally.
Otherwise their phases are "all over the place".

Sun emits light of all frequencies and phases from all of its surface.
From every point of it.
Visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma-rays, ...
And that surface is for sure much bigger than Moon and Earth.

We are talking about visible light

Wavelengths of visible light range from 380 to 760 nanometers (average people can see from 390 to 700).
Still pretty wide range.
But it's irrelevant here.

One side of the Sun is far enough to shine under one edge of the object,
other side of the Sun is far enough to shine under other edge of the object.

Show photo

We are talking about visible light

Light Supremacist!

Show photo please!

This is for the SE out there, can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area from a single light source?

You might ask why?

Because the moon casted a shadow of only 70 miles in diameter last August in the eclipse. Since the moons diameter is supposedly 2000 miles, then, Huston we have a problem!!!!

But there will be a bunch of “scientist” out there, that will try to confuses everybody with mumbo jumbo, so let’s make it simple.

Instead of writing your garbage, how about you take a photo of the shadow of a solid with of a single light source and show that its shadow is smaller than its cross section area that is perpendicular?

Simple question, deserves a simple photo!

Only the umbra was 70 miles wide.  The entire shadow which includes the penumbra was far larger.

How big was the shadow in August?

How big was the shadow in August?

Why don't you know already?

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbra-shadow.html
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-sci-solar-eclipse-2017-map/

Instead of writing your garbage, how about you take a photo of the shadow of a solid with of a single light source and show that its shadow is smaller than its cross section area that is perpendicular?

Simple question, deserves a simple photo!

I agree. Disappointing that no responses so far have been the simple photo you asked for.

Cloudy here today ... I'll be happy to provide a photo taken in sunlight when it clears.