The moon isn't a perfect sphere

The crescent moon completely destroys your retarded theory. The moon is a sphere, just like Earth and every other fucking known planet.

>>18148211

Go outside and look before you say it doesn't really look like that tonight.

I'll be sure to do this again to see what the crescent really is. Maybe the moon is like an empty eggshell.

>>18148232
Maybe you ought to spend a little more time looking at it yourself. It doesn't actually work the way you've shown in your diagram.

Also you should be able to notice that the darkside is still there. It's usually at least partially visible in the earth light, and even if it isn't it will still blot out the stars behind it.

>>18148194
>hidden by earths shadow

There are many more things that are outright wrong with this shit, but that statement really takes the cake

>>18148312
>the darkside is still there

Nope. completely black.

But like I said I made an observation, I don't have a theory.

>>18148326
>There are many more things that are outright wrong with this shit

Yes, probably. I only pointed out one of them.

>>18148353
Why would you think it is the earths shadow to begin with? Nobody is saying that. The only time the earth shadow darkens any spot on the moon is during an eclipse.
That picture is retarded on so many levels

>>18148376
>Why would you think it is the earths shadow to begin with? Nobody is saying that.

Did you ever watch ANY popular science show on tv? You're not paying attention obviously. It's also right there in my atlas next the star map.

File: img_2828.jpg (1MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5184x3456px

>>18148346
>Nope. completely black
this isnt debatable. You can even see it with your unaided eyes. Or even better, make a photo with the right exposure.

>>18148400
literally nobody is saying that the phases of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth. This is your misconception alone and you should feel retarded for believing this

>>18148406

Except tonight it isn't debable it's completely black.

>>18148416

What were you told then, I'm interested.

>>18148419
thats right. nobody will debate this with you. it is utterly retarded. you can always clearly see the dark side. You are making retarded claims without proof. It is like saying "guys the sky is green!"

>>18148445

Go outside and look.

File: 1467400470371.png (33KB, 566x557px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 566x557px

I never understood if these threads about celestial bodies on /x/ are made by legit retards or it's just a well placed b8.
It's the same with flat Earth threads, and it's just amusing

>>18148426
You can literally look at the fucking moon all day every day and easily conclude what is going on. It is a ball and there is only one light source, so there only can be one half of it be illuminated

I know what you mean.
That's a big dent caused by a moon landing.

File: DSCF1676.jpg (2MB, 3489x2377px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3489x2377px

>>18148445

I also already said my camera can't take photos like that, this is all I get.

But it doesn't matter because you can see what I mean with a pair of regular binoculars.

>>18148490
I only see, that you are retarded to the point where you dont understand object permanence

>>18148502

That's 1 second exposure handheld leaning against the window frame. I don't have a better camera than this.

>>18148514
thats ok and astrophotography can be tricky. Your conclusions are the problem here

>>18148538

I can't add a telescope to this camera model, hence I can't take a better pic showing what I drew in the OP.

Man /x/ has fallen on hard times. The OP is a fucking idiot.

>>18148657
Why havent you simply placed the phone lens up to the viewfinder of the binoculours. I did this during the bloodmoon and it came out fine.

>>18148194
Are you retarded?

File: DSCF1680.jpg (139KB, 1257x1281px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1257x1281px

>>18148940

I didn't think of it.

But the camera isn't picking up the details.

>>18149181

>>18148445
>you can always clearly see the dark side. You are making retarded claims without proof


At least you can see that there is no dark side.

>>18149187
see
>>18148406

>inb4: but in this photo...
see
>>18148502

File: earthshape_200304171.jpg (35KB, 250x243px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 250x243px

Well, the moon isn't technically a complete ball it's an oblate spheroid. The pull that the earth has on the moon barely distorts it horizontally, which is, to a human invisible. Earth itself is an oblate spheroid because of the Sun's gravity.

>>18149209

Where's the dark side?

Don't change the subject, this isn't about my lack of photo skills.

>>18149220
>Earth itself is an oblate spheroid because of the Sun's gravity.

Why isn't this showing on NASA photos then?

>>18148194
Fuck dude when did /x/ become a haven for retards to spout uneducated things like it's fucking gospel.

>>18149230
Kys

>>18149253
>proving his point that much

>>18149230

Did you go out tonight and watch the moon? It's still there, even clearer now.

>>18149257
What can I say, your rustling pleases me.

>>18149223
It's literally a 50 kilometer distance. How can you properly see that on the scale on the photos out in space.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910023392.pdf
And maybe this'll shut you up.

The shaded part of the moon is the moons shadow not the earths the curve would be backwards if it were the earths. Go back to school

>>18149223
look really close at those numbers and think hard about how obvious that oblation looks...
pro tip: you will have a hard time to eyeball this effect in nasa pictures, because the difference is really small

>>18149220
the suns gravity barely factors in with this. It is mainly because of the rotation

>>18149266
>nasa
Into the trash.

>>18149275
good argument

>>18149266
>>18149272

I can see it very well in >>18149220

If that's not what you're talking about, but some minor thing you can't even see, you're making a pointless argument. You're still talking of a sphere, you just want to be a special snowflake and call it something else.

>>18149296
thats just a diagram that purposfully exaggerates the difference, because thats the one thing it wants to show.
and yes, tripfag is just pedantic.

>>18149269

Interesting how this argument has changed from using the form of the earth's shadow on the moon to prove it's spherical, to now saying it actually isn't the earth's shadow after you lost that part of the argument. Your theory is falling apart.

>>18149296
Hey, I'm just saying. It technically isn't a sphere, and OP technically isn't a real described autist. It's just easier to call it how it looks.

>>18149302
It was the first thing that caught my eye searching google. It was either that or just wire mesh for textbooks.

>>18149311
Hey, I have no problem with being pedantic here, For all intents and purposes, this is shitposting general anyway. So we might aswell talk about some interesting astronomy stuff to up the percentage of actual information itt

>>18149275
Everybody knowns the only trustworthy source is David "I'm literally Jesus" Icke.

>>18149296
>"The moon isn't a perfect sphere"
>>someone shows that it isnt
>hurr, pointless argument

>>18148194
you're fucking retarded if you believe yourself

>>18148346
its srsly there you fuck

>>18148484
kek

>>18148426
the dark part of the moon is the part facing away from the sun you complete fuckwit

>>18149253
kys

>>18148211
Not perfect spheres tho

>>18149325
Well, ok. It's pretty knowledgeable that the same thing that makes our moon an oblate spheroid also makes other moons oblate spheroids too. But in Jupiter, the sheer gravitational pull that it has on it's moons are a lot more drastic.

The motions made in rotation, and orbit cause Jupiter's moons to stretch, then collapse. You can see this on Europa's surface where the contractions carved valleys in the Icy surface. These movements are also creating friction and heat inside it's core, which scientists have hypothesized that the heat has made a layer of water between the moon's core and crust. Warm enough for deep sea organisms to potentially thrive in.

We have a long time from knowing yet, but maybe someday we'll find underwater ayys as we drill into Europa's surface.

>>18148194
i thought of this when i was 10.
the sun's extreme brightness makes the lit up part of the moon really bright, and when contrasted with the dark side, its impossible to tell it from dark, empty space behind it. the craters on the moon are, of course, not perfect, and many of them arent even craters. they are impressions created by lava lakes on the moons surface from billions of years ago, so they are imperfect, and often look like spherical craters from a distance and at an angle.

>>18148194
you're a moron lol, should take physics class instead of wasting your time look through a telescope lens at nothing you can understand, holy shit loool

>>18148419
So then what's obscuring the stars on the other side?

>>18149296
>I can see it very well in...

Yes but that's not to scale.

But yeah, it's more spherical than most daily objects we'd think of as spheres, so calling it an oblate spheroid is mostly splitting hairs.

>>18149464

Again, interesting how the arguments change in a few months. It was ALWAYS, said you can see the shape of the earth's shadow on the moon.

>>18149559

>Ignore what you see goy, you have to see what is in the book

Is this really how retarded people are today?

>>18150177
It was said so often, in fact, that I've literally never been told it.

>>18148194
Troll detected.
Nothing to see here, folks. Least of all the earth's shadow on the moon.

>>18150177
So what's an eclipse then, you crayon-eating fucking retard?

File: Moon_phases_drawing.gif (9KB, 500x273px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 500x273px

>>18150177
>It was ALWAYS, said you can see the shape of the earth's shadow on the moon.
lol who the fuck has been telling you that? Take any astronomy class, middle-school, high-school, university, whatever, and this one of the first things you study. Guess you weren't paying attention.

>>18148514
Lower the exposure.

>not a single celestial body is a perfect sphere
>more news at never

>>18149305
>Interesting how this argument has changed from using the form of the earth's shadow on the moon to prove it's spherical
Lol wut, who argued that, you retard?

>>18149223
they are all faked, retard

>>18150177
>>Ignore what you see goy, you have to see what is in the book

>implying you're a rational agent
>implying you're smart enough to recognize, comprehend, and then memorize properties of light with your retard's level of observation and equally appalling cognitive capacity
>implying you haven't already proven that you're literally just some fucking moron who thinks looking at the moon is the same as looking at the hand in front of his dumb fucking face

tl;dr you're too stupid to trust what you see, so yes, it's in your best interest to see what is in the book and to do ANYTHING but think for yourself

>>18149466
By the goddess aren't we all trying.
>66 nice dubs

>>18150826
>tl;dr you're too stupid to trust what you see
that's `you're too stupid for trusting what you see to qualify as an instance of "good decision making,"`` fyi

>>18149559
>take physics class instead of wasting your time look through a telescope lens

Look folks, modern science just destroyed itself.

You've become exactly like the church you used to criticise. There was this guy with a telescope in history, what was his name... no I don't expect you to know this story.

>Observation, the very basis of science

>A waste of time


>>18150826
>it's in your best interest to see what is in the book and to do ANYTHING but think for yourself

Science confirmed for a cult.


End note:
I think this thread achieved its purpose, it's shown modern science lacks critical thinking and has degenerated into a study of doctrines rather than of the world.

K.O.

Science lose

File: KBOxw.jpg (75KB, 650x434px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 650x434px

>>18151023
>blah blah blah
>long-ass, probably-tryhard post from some double-spacing autist
jesus christ tl;dr rofl, who would

>>18149305
I think you're confused anon.

Somewhere you read that the shadow of the earth on the moon is proof of the globe model of the earth.

This is true. But you've misunderstood it.

It does not mean the phase of the moon is the shadow of the earth.

They are talking about the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse. It has always been about lunar eclipses.

How does it prove the world is a sphere? What if it's just a round disk?

Well then sure, the shadow of the earth would still be round. But only at midnight. But at 11 PM, or 1 AM it would be skewed. At at 10 PM or 2 AM the shadow would be even more skewed. And at a selenehelion? You'd be able to see only the shadow of the edge of the disk, and maybe the elephant underneath.

Is that how the shadow appears in real life? No, the shadow is always a circle, at any hour of the day. Why? Because the shape of the earth doesn't change depending on the angle of viewing. Why? Because it's a sphere.

File: iamthelaw.jpg (151KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1920x1080px

>>18150826
you probably missed the point entirely, so i'll give what really should be unnecessary elaboration:

>>18148194
>light curves, dumbfuck
>you're too much of a fucking retard
>to figure this out with a telescope
>which is why you need books
>by people who aren't retards
>and don't use telescopes retardedly
>your autist's conjecture
>re: durr how it would look if hurr
>is based on your idiot's perception
>of how light works
>in the world around you
>which is 100% insufficient
>when determining "durr how le moon shuld look"
>via sheer fucking irrelevance

tl;dr it's just like i said, you're too stupid for trusting your observations to be a "good" idea, it's probably why you post your dumbass ideas on the internet, where people won't associate them w/who you are irl

>>18151108
>>light curves, dumbfuck
you'll note how if you study celestial bodies, then your observations will fucking infer this -- but you don't study celestial bodies; you're just some dumb fucking pretentious know-nothing with a shitty bargain-bin telescope and an internet connection, who looked at the moon once and confused his own stupidity with seeing something no one's ever seen before

>tl;dr read a book

>>18148346
Well your observation is fallacious and thusly any hypothesis, conjecture, or statements based upon said observation would by extension also be fallacious.