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

  • 127 Replies
  • 5264 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 21091
  • Real Earth Believer
Still, even though there are bright clouds around, I'll give it a go.

It would be easiest to check at a zenith: a place and a time when the Sun is directly overhead. Currently, the Sun's zenith is at a latitude of 17° 26' S.
Yes, the clouds cleared and I made a better "shadow objects" (a 127 mm coarse carbide sanding disc) and mounted it about 2.2 m high.

Here are the results of the shadow cast by the disc in direct sunlight:

Shadow Disc Size = 127 mm
     
Shadow, Umbra Size = 108 mm
WTF kinda crap you trying to pull Geoff?

You think we cannot read the ruler?

You start at 10 mm for the photo on the left, 9mm for the photo on the right, who knows if the ruler is level in your hands for both photos (could be tilted left or right for all we know)...
Obvious you and all the other bots cannot read the ruler either...
Honest bots would bring that shit down in an instant...
WHAT A MASSIVE FAIL!!!
LMMFAO!!!
Shadow same size as object!!!
NEXT!!!
Yes, Mr Totally Lacking, I know that YOU cannot read the ruler.

Now, remember Totally Lacking that the umbra is the darkest part of shadow.
Object: Left side 10 cm = 10 x 10 mm = 100 mm. Right side: 22.7 cm = 10 x 22.7 mm = 227 mm. Therfore width = 127 mm.
Shadow: Left side 8.9 cm = 8.9 x 10 mm = 89 mm. Right side: 19.6 cm = 10 x 19.6 mm = 196 mm. Therfore width = 107 mm.
Oops, I made the umbra a mm smaller, but the edge is a but ill-defined, but whatever the case, the umbra is smaller than the object.

Totally Lacking, I have a serious question: Are you really as stupid as you seem to be, or are your trying hard to make the flat-earthers look ridiculous.
Whichever the case you are succeeding admirably - congratulations!

And again, can you show me a shadow (ALL) that is smaller than the cross section of the object in sunlight?
For your definition of the word "shadow", no.


“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

shadow extends the umbra portion

To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Because the moon casted a shadow of only 70 miles in diameter last August in the eclipse.
The moon's shadow (your definition) was not 70 miles in diameter.

*

rabinoz

  • 21091
  • Real Earth Believer
My mistake about the year, did not see that, but want to explain this



Shadow larger than the object or the same

You are pointing out the penumbra, not the total shadow, or umbra.
If you were in the penumbra you would be able to see part of the sun.

The path of totality of an eclipse is the width of an umbra and no amount of your redefining on your part can change that.

In the case of a solar eclipse penumbra is the region of partial eclipse.

Admittedly your topic title "Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross-section area?" was ambiguous,
but surely when you are talking about shadows and eclipses you would mean the path of totality or the umbra.

Admittedly your topic title "Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross-section area?" was ambiguous,
but surely when you are talking about shadows and eclipses you would mean the path of totality or the umbra.

I wouldn't count on it

Quote
If you were in the penumbra you would be able to see part of the sun.

If you were on the ISS and if it was on orbit, then the penumbra should be visible, but in their photos they show nothing but the umbra. Cypress can be seen in this image and its length is 225 km, which is about 140 miles.

The total shadow shown on earth is much less than the 2,159 miles diameter of the moon


https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_538.html

Good Night
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Quote
If you were in the penumbra you would be able to see part of the sun.
If you were on the ISS and if it was on orbit, then the penumbra should be visible, but in their photos they show nothing but the umbra.
The penumbra is visible.

Your judgement of where the edge of the penumbra lies is faulty.

Please point out the edge of the penumbra.

*

rabinoz

  • 21091
  • Real Earth Believer
NO, the only shadow that NASA showed us was the 70 mile diameter, which you call umbra, not me.
Do you ever get tired moving those goal posts around so much and so far?
You claim that "the only shadow that NASA showed us was the 70 mile diameter, which" everybody else calls the umbra, even if you don't.

But your claim is totally refuted by the NASA map that you posted here:
In official graphics before the event, their was no penumbra shown as from the below photo which was taken from NASA websites https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/eclipse-maps
Look at an enlarged bit!
Open your eyes so that you can see the lines parallel to the path of totality with little pictures of partially eclipsed suns on them.
Those define the paths of different degrees of partiality.

Now Mr InFlatEarth, if you have a shred of decency, a lot of apologies from you would be in order, thank you!

NO, the only shadow that NASA showed us was the 70 mile diameter, which you call umbra, not me.
Do you ever get tired moving those goal posts around so much and so far?
You claim that "the only shadow that NASA showed us was the 70 mile diameter, which" everybody else calls the umbra, even if you don't.

But your claim is totally refuted by the NASA map that you posted here:
In official graphics before the event, their was no penumbra shown as from the below photo which was taken from NASA websites https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/eclipse-maps
Look at an enlarged bit!
Open your eyes so that you can see the lines parallel to the path of totality with little pictures of partially eclipsed suns on them.
Those define the paths of different degrees of partiality.

Now Mr InFlatEarth, if you have a shred of decency, a lot of apologies from you would be in order, thank you!

Open your eyes, photo from NASA's ISS station



where is the 2000 mile penumbra ?
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

*

rabinoz

  • 21091
  • Real Earth Believer
NO, the only shadow that NASA showed us was the 70 mile diameter, which you call umbra, not me.
Do you ever get tired moving those goal posts around so much and so far?
You claim that "the only shadow that NASA showed us was the 70 mile diameter, which" everybody else calls the umbra, even if you don't.

But your claim is totally refuted by the NASA map that you posted here:
In official graphics before the event, their was no penumbra shown as from the below photo which was taken from NASA websites https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/eclipse-maps
Look at an enlarged bit!
Open your eyes so that you can see the lines parallel to the path of totality with little pictures of partially eclipsed suns on them.
Those define the paths of different degrees of partiality.

Now Mr InFlatEarth, if you have a shred of decency, a lot of apologies from you would be in order, thank you!
<< Irrelevant >>
Apologies please, Mr InFlatEarth!

NO, the only shadow that NASA showed us was the 70 mile diameter, which you call umbra, not me.
Do you ever get tired moving those goal posts around so much and so far?
You claim that "the only shadow that NASA showed us was the 70 mile diameter, which" everybody else calls the umbra, even if you don't.

But your claim is totally refuted by the NASA map that you posted here:
In official graphics before the event, their was no penumbra shown as from the below photo which was taken from NASA websites https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/eclipse-maps
Look at an enlarged bit!
Open your eyes so that you can see the lines parallel to the path of totality with little pictures of partially eclipsed suns on them.
Those define the paths of different degrees of partiality.

Now Mr InFlatEarth, if you have a shred of decency, a lot of apologies from you would be in order, thank you!

Open your eyes, photo from NASA's ISS station



where is the 2000 mile penumbra ?


In this photo, the edge of the penumbra extends farther than is visible from ISS

Great to know this whole topic easily resolved in only 4 pages over a misunderstanding of what is and isn't visible in a photo.

*

deadsirius

  • 897
  • Crime Machine
InFlatEarth seemed to be suggesting that any point on Earth's surface is only receiving light from the very point on the Sun that happens to be lined up with that point on Earth.

This would mean at any given time, the only part of the Sun you could see would be the two human iris-sized portions of the sun that happened to be pointed directly at your eyes.  In fact, the only part of anything you could see would be whatever iris-sized parts of it were pointed at your eyes.

So IFE once you admit how obviously wrong that is, it should be easy to see how a large light source hitting a smaller object would cast a shadow smaller than that object.
Suffering from a martyr complex...so you don't have to

*

boydster

  • Brute Squad Support
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12091
  • You keep using that word.
You can easily conduct the same experiment with no ambient light, but as you are too afraid of the results, you choose not to.

You are too afraid to try it with ambient Sun light!



Uh.... you missed one


Still, even though there are bright clouds around, I'll give it a go.

It would be easiest to check at a zenith: a place and a time when the Sun is directly overhead. Currently, the Sun's zenith is at a latitude of 17° 26' S.
Yes, the clouds cleared and I made a better "shadow objects" (a 127 mm coarse carbide sanding disc) and mounted it about 2.2 m high.

Here are the results of the shadow cast by the disc in direct sunlight:

Shadow Disc Size = 127 mm
     
Shadow, Umbra Size = 108 mm

OK, I said cross section area of the object.

Was the object 100% leveled or did it have an upper tilt and thus creating a smaller cross section area?

Second, their is still a lighter shadow around the dark shadow, thus having a greater radius.

In the August eclipse, where is the 2,000 miles lighter shadow of the moon on the earth?

There is an umbra and a penumbra. The size of each depends on the size of the object, the distance from the object to the sun, and the distance from the object to the Earth.
Let me explain this in a way you can understand. What you just wrote sounds exactly like something that a gay rights Portuguese Samurai would write.

?

frenat

  • 3265
Quote
Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area

I said shadow, not umbra
Oops, looks like you forgot to quote what you said 2 lines later!  Here, I'll do it for you:
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.
You specifically expressed an objection to the 70 mile diameter shadow, which is the size of the umbra.  Do you ever get tired moving those goal posts around so much and so far?

NO, the only shadow that NASA showed us was the 70 mile diameter, which you call umbra, not me.
Do you ever get tired moving those goal posts around so much and so far?
Except for all the times they showed the penumbra denoting the areas that had a partial eclipse.

?

frenat

  • 3265
shadow extends the umbra portion


also known as the penumbra

?

ER22

  • 393
Show me a Flat Earth map that works.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #108 on: February 01, 2018, 12:23:45 AM »
Still, even though there are bright clouds around, I'll give it a go.

It would be easiest to check at a zenith: a place and a time when the Sun is directly overhead. Currently, the Sun's zenith is at a latitude of 17° 26' S.
Yes, the clouds cleared and I made a better "shadow objects" (a 127 mm coarse carbide sanding disc) and mounted it about 2.2 m high.

Here are the results of the shadow cast by the disc in direct sunlight:

Shadow Disc Size = 127 mm
     
Shadow, Umbra Size = 108 mm

You didn't show proof that the object casting the shadow was the same object used as a reference, i.e. the sanding disc.

Anyone can cut a piece of card into a circle using a compass and scissors, rabbibot.

Also, changing the reference point on the ruler from ten cm to nine cm was sloppy and potentially deceptive.

Your experiment is thus completely invalid.

Only a video of this kind of experiment would be valid, where the apparatus can be shown in full, before moving to close-ups of the disc then the shadow respectively, with measurements shown starting from Zero cm as a base.

You know nothing about the scientific method and are only here to waste people's time with nonsense.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Macarios

  • 1507
Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #109 on: February 01, 2018, 01:40:43 AM »
This is how on Jan 31st Moon was passing first penumbra, and then partially umbra of Earth:

Quote
Eclipse progression that I captured last night. Canon 1200D, with a 200mm. Bakground lights are from our airport.
(from: https://9gag.com/gag/avOLDGZ
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 01:45:26 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #110 on: February 01, 2018, 01:48:57 AM »
Still, even though there are bright clouds around, I'll give it a go.

It would be easiest to check at a zenith: a place and a time when the Sun is directly overhead. Currently, the Sun's zenith is at a latitude of 17° 26' S.
Yes, the clouds cleared and I made a better "shadow objects" (a 127 mm coarse carbide sanding disc) and mounted it about 2.2 m high.

Here are the results of the shadow cast by the disc in direct sunlight:

Shadow Disc Size = 127 mm
     
Shadow, Umbra Size = 108 mm

You didn't show proof that the object casting the shadow was the same object used as a reference, i.e. the sanding disc.

Anyone can cut a piece of card into a circle using a compass and scissors, rabbibot.

Also, changing the reference point on the ruler from ten cm to nine cm was sloppy and potentially deceptive.

Your experiment is thus completely invalid.

Only a video of this kind of experiment would be valid, where the apparatus can be shown in full, before moving to close-ups of the disc then the shadow respectively, with measurements shown starting from Zero cm as a base.

You know nothing about the scientific method and are only here to waste people's time with nonsense.

Another thing I have noticed is that the rabbibot does not show that the ruler is in fact laid directly upon the shadow.

If the ruler were raised even a couple of cm above the shadow it would reduce the apparent measurement appreciably.

This experiment must now be considered deliberately fraudulent, and I expect an explanation from the rabbibot of his conduct in attempting to dupe this community.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • 21091
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #111 on: February 01, 2018, 01:54:00 AM »
You didn't show proof that the object casting the shadow was the same object used as a reference, i.e. the sanding disc.
Mr Voodoo Priest either post some better evidence or admit that you're talking your usual garbage.
Bye bye loser.

*

rvlvr

  • 957
Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #112 on: February 01, 2018, 01:56:19 AM »
Another thing I have noticed is that the rabbibot does not show that the ruler is in fact laid directly upon the shadow.

If the ruler were raised even a couple of cm above the shadow it would reduce the apparent measurement appreciably.

This experiment must now be considered deliberately fraudulent, and I expect an explanation from the rabbibot of his conduct in attempting to dupe this community.
On the other hand, most people would think you are just too dense to understand you have been proven wrong, and continue to do the only thing you know.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #113 on: February 01, 2018, 02:36:09 AM »
You didn't show proof that the object casting the shadow was the same object used as a reference, i.e. the sanding disc.
Mr Voodoo Priest either post some better evidence or admit that you're talking your usual garbage.
Bye bye loser.

Please prove that the object casting the shadow was the same object used as a reference i.e. the the sanding disc, and that the ruler in the photo was laid flat upon the shadow rather than raised above it, which would reduce the measurement shown appreciably.

And do so using a video, with no cuts or edits.

If you cannot do this your experiment can only be considered fraudulent.

Thank you!
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 02:37:54 AM by Papa Legba »
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • 21091
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #114 on: February 01, 2018, 02:43:27 AM »
You didn't show proof that the object casting the shadow was the same object used as a reference, i.e. the sanding disc.
Mr Voodoo Priest either post some better evidence or admit that you're talking your usual garbage.
Bye bye loser.
I posted a couple of genuine photos. If you choose to doubt them, tough cheese!
If you object, go do it yourself you useless  :DVoodoo Priest :D!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #115 on: February 01, 2018, 03:01:16 AM »
You didn't show proof that the object casting the shadow was the same object used as a reference, i.e. the sanding disc.
Mr Voodoo Priest either post some better evidence or admit that you're talking your usual garbage.
Bye bye loser.
I posted a couple of genuine photos.

Yes.

You posted genuine photos of an obviously flawed experiment.

Glad we cleared that up.

Now post an uncut, unedited video of the same experiment,  incorporating all the modifications I suggested, to prove you are not a liar and a cheat.

Until you do, nothing you say on this forum on any scientific matter can be taken seriously.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • 21091
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #116 on: February 01, 2018, 03:28:12 AM »
You didn't show proof that the object casting the shadow was the same object used as a reference, i.e. the sanding disc.
Mr Voodoo Priest either post some better evidence or admit that you're talking your usual garbage.
Bye bye loser.
I posted a couple of genuine photos.
<< Ravings of demented Voodoo Priest deleted >>
I posted a couple of genuine photos of an honestly performed experiment. As I said before, if you don't like it, tough cheese!

Mr Voodoo Priest, nothing you ever say on this forum on any matter is ever taken seriously.
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #117 on: February 01, 2018, 04:17:00 AM »
Now run away and bother someone who cares!
Poor Geoff...

Got busted on the "for shit," experiment!!!

Admits here in this post he cares not for legitimacy, pursuit of truth, or even caring about  his "scientific hygiene."

LMMFAO!!!

Anyone who takes this bot seriously from this point forward, really needs to have their head examined.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

*

rvlvr

  • 957
Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #118 on: February 01, 2018, 04:33:26 AM »
Poor Geoff...

Got busted on the "for shit," experiment!!!

Admits here in this post he cares not for legitimacy, pursuit of truth, or even caring about  his "scientific hygiene."

LMMFAO!!!

Anyone who takes this bot seriously from this point forward, really needs to have their head examined.
Ever tried to think how others might perceive you? Like, who do you think they might consider as the one they would listen to, and discuss with? Is this how you conduct your business outside this forum?

Your FE theory and all your attemps to prove it have the staying power of a (poorly built) sand castle, at best. And you try hide this fact with asinine behaviour. The rare moments of lucidity even Papa Legba is capable of showing every now and then make what he says actually worth reading, to some extent. It is when he regresses back to bot mode no one cares one iota what he says.

So, be more like productive members of society, and less like a demented animal. You might win at least some respect of others. You know, "agree to disagree" instead of "shut the fuck up, idiot".
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 04:36:15 AM by rvlvr »

*

Macarios

  • 1507
Re: For the SE - Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
« Reply #119 on: February 01, 2018, 04:37:04 AM »
If the Sun is 5005 km up and 45 km in diameter, and if it was spot light, it would still
make shadows of smaller object be smaller than the object and have umbra and penumbra.

In both models, Flat or Globe, Sun's angular diameter is 0.5 degrees.
If that smaller object is 5 meters in diameter, and at altitude of 1000 meters,
it would have angular diameter of 0.3 degrees. It is not big enough to cover Sun's 0.5 degrees.
Edges of the sun around the object will shine inside the projection of the object, converting edges of the shadow into penumbra.

Whether Flat or Globe, we would still have situation shown here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74067.msg2016194#msg2016194
with one "little" diference: there's no point at the ground where the whole Sun is covered, so shadow won't have umbra at all.
It would have antumbra, as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra.
To make umbra, the object has to be closer to the ground.

Shadow smaller than the object means what?
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 04:58:08 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.