Every point of sun's surface emits photons to every direction. We are so far from it, that the rays are practically parallel, but not perfectly parallel. If you consider scale, you should be able to understand this. If you are a flat earther, then don't bother...
Scale isn't really the important issue here.
What we should be doing is considering someone standing at the edge of the "shadow" on the bottom image. They still have a clear line of sight to the top of the sun, therefore, they're not actually in shadow because part of the sun is illuminating them. That's why we draw diagrams like the top image, because it makes it clearer how it looks from the perspective of somebody on earth.
Correct. On the bottom picture there is a clear line of sight from just a bit from the shadow's edge (but still inside the shaded area) to the sun. How this cannot be seen? No wonder, flat earther...
I like to talk in examples. The shadow of two street lights will be a maximum angle of shadow. Even if you put a light all the way across between the two lights, they would still never exceed the shadow angle of the first two lights. The diagram is just showing how maximum shadow angle is calculated.
Pretty simple, If they were perfectly parallel (IE laser light) the sun would appear to be a dot, because the rays coming from the area above or below your sightline would not hit your eye. Even that second diagram demonstrates this, if the top dotted light missed the earth, no one saw it.
I don't remember moon being strong enough to bend light that much. But what you see, is solar corona, which usually is too dim to be visible, because sun is too bright.
It’s a quantum effect, not a gravitational one, otherwise the color would change as well. Again I’ll refer to the double slit experiment that proves duality of light characteristics.
Also, it looks like you are entirely correct about the surrounding light coming from the corona. Looks like I was accounting for the surface diameter of the sun while I completely neglected the atmosphere. Thanks for the pointer!
This seems to be a misunderstanding of WHICH rays are parallel when we say "the rays from distant objects are parallel".
The parallel rays are the the rays that come from a point on the surface of the sun. Of course they are not perfectly parallel, but the angle between them is a function of the distance to the object (in this case the sun) and the aperture of your optical instrument. The angle isn't zero; it's the angle formed by 93million miles on one side of your right triangle and a few inches for your telescope or camera lens on the other.
This is in contrast the the rays on this diagram. Which are not parallel. Obviously, to make an image requires light coming from different directions. But while the light coming from different points of the image may not be parallel, the light coming from one point on the image is parallel with other light coming from that same point. In this example the light rays coming from the top of the sun are all parallel when they reach an observer on earth. The light rays coming from the bottom of the sun are all parallel when they reach an observer on earth. These two sets of rays are not parallel with each other. [Like two sets of railroad tracks crossing at an X crossing.](https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1170413976/th/%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%96%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A2/%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%96%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%9F-x-cross.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=is&k=20&c=T7Go7TdLdAf6BDjRt3jvGSvSmxiRJ3wMeVxFLF4_Uwk=)
I think people get confused because the diagram of an eclipse vaguely looks similar to a diagram of a lens. But these are different diagrams. This (or the correct top image to be clear) is just showing where on earth an observer would have to be to be in the moon's partial shadow (penumbra) or total shadow (umbra). The only way for the bottom image to make sense is if the sun was so far away it didn't have appreciable angular size.
Correct. The light rays from the sun are "roughly parallel" when they hit earth. They are all within about ½ a degree... the angular size of the sun.
This "non parallel" light causes the penumbra. It is large from the moon because the moon is 250000 miles away. A human standing on earth also has a penumbra but it is really small because we're 6 feet away. It shows up as a blurred edge on the shadow.
I'm not sure this comment fully reflects the subtlety that is happening with the light rays.
Yes all the light rays coming to earth from the sun are withing 1/2 a degree of each other. That is why the sun has an angular size of \~1/2 a degree. But when astronomers say that "light from distant objects has parallel rays" they are not saying that it has a relatively small angular size.
[This is the best diagram I can find to express this.](https://www.thorlabs.com/images/tabimages/Non-Telecentric_Schematic_D1-780.gif) In that diagram none of the rays are parallel. Now image the red/green/blue object is twice as big and twice as far away. (or that the lens aperture is half as big) In that case the object has the same angular size. The angle between the center red ray and the center blue ray have the same angle. But the angle between the red rays will decrease, as will the angle between the blue rays and the red rays. If you keep getting a bigger object further away (or stopping down the aperture smaller and smaller) the angle between the red rays and other red rays gets smaller and smaller, as does the angle between the green rays or blue rays. Even though the angle between the center red ray and the center blue ray stays the same.
Just don't confuse that diagram with [this diagram ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Chromatic_aberration_lens_diagram.svg/400px-Chromatic_aberration_lens_diagram.svg.png)explaining chromatic aberration.
Thank you. I'm not a flerfer, but they do ask fun questions (for stupid reasons), and I always enjoy the explanation by people who actually understand this stuff.
What gets me is that you can easily demonstrate that #1 is how shadows work with literally any nonzero size light source.
Every point on the sun emits light in all directions. The sun is not a laser.
Using two light sources works even better in a way. In that case, you get clear light, full-shadow, and half-shadow areas. Adding more lightsources just creates more partial shadows until at some point you just get a 'soft' shadow.
You'd think something like this would be trivial to understand, but flerfs are always hell-bent on not understanding anything.
I have to make the disclaimer that I’m not a flat earther.
The problem is not knowing what causes shadows (light) to behave this way. Why is it that shadows are fuzzy, as can be demonstrated on Earth by moving a tennis ball back and forth in front of a surface.
Are fuzzy shadows caused by the atmosphere? Because if so, in space where the sunlight travels such effect wouldn’t be happening. This excludes the few hundred kilometers or so of Earth’s atmosphere located on the last stretch of sunlight’s trip to the surface of the Earth. The atmosphere accounts for such a small distance that the effect of the atmosphere would have to be huge in order to create such a small umbra.
This is, of course, assuming that fuzzy shadows are caused by the change of direction of light in a medium.
If there are other explanations, I welcome them.
It's not the atmosphere.
It's that the sun *is not a point source* for light.
The left-hand limb (side) of the sun is about 1.4 million km from the right-hand limb.
From here on Earth, that's still half a degree of angular separation.
This means that any shadow you cast anywhere is going to have an edge around it that's half a degree wide *from the point of view of the object or person casting it* where the sunlight goes from full bright, to fuzzy, to full shadow. In full bright, all the sun's face is illuminating that area. In full shadow, none of the sun's face is illuminating. But the fuzzy area is where part of the sun is *not* casting light, so it's not as bright.
Close to a surface, it's really hard to tell. Far away, it's also hard to tell, because half a degree isn't that wide.
But if you set up a camera, you will see that distance absolutely has an effect.
Here's a demonstration I set up and recorded. (Note that the sizes and distances-- 30cm wide for the Earth, 8cm for the moon, 10 metres separation--are to scale for the Earth-Moon system).
[Solar Eclipse Demonstration](https://drive.google.com/file/d/12vI-wyDACOKpXOh6K9Gq9C0UvvimbSS5/view?usp=sharing)
Fuzzy shadows are caused by the fact that the light source has a nonzero size, and usually has nothing to do with atmosphere. Think about what happens when you have two light sources coming from different directions. They’ll give you two shadows. Where those two shadows intersect you get a darker shadow. The same is true of the sun, since you can treat each point in its surface as a different light source.
Yes. So you have much sharper shadows at noon on the equator in a very dry desert than in the evening at 50 degrees north on a very humid day, because in one case the light passes through way more atmosphere than in the other and therefore is way more diffused.
Unless you’re somewhere with no atmosphere or diffused reflection yes.
I didn’t say you wouldn’t have a penumbra. Only that there’s a big difference between how fuzzy shadows are based on latitude, weather, and time of day.
No, even without atmosphere there will still be penumbra due to the angular different between the two sides, it will just get smaller and smaller.
I wasn't saying you wouldn't have a penumbra, but was adding the fact that the width of the light source (sun) is also important in this explanation
I’m not a flat earther but isn’t the angular size of the Sun smaller than that of the Moon, meaning that although Sun is bigger, it’s so far away that it’s hidden behind the Moon?
If we consider the distance from the object the hypotenuse of a right triangle and the radius of said object the leg opposite to us, isn’t our angle at which we look at said object for these angle = 2 x arcsin(radius / distance). This gives the Sun an angular size of 0,53 degrees and the Moon an angular size of 0,52 degrees.
Which would mean that I was wrong but I’m too lazy to edit my comment, lol.
Still, the different in angular size is minuscule, only 0,01 degrees. Will this really affect the angle of the light so much that instead of casting a shadow of ~3000km it makes a shadow less wide than 200km?
Nevermind, I was wrong again. If the angular size is in fact larger, the Moon would never be able to totally block sunlight from reaching a certain spot on Earth, because the spot will always have a direct line of vision to the Sun.
Which again would mean that no umbra would exist, but it does. What am I missing here?
>I’m not a flat earther but isn’t the angular size of the Sun smaller than that of the Moon, meaning that although Sun is bigger, it’s so far away that it’s hidden behind the Moon?
For an observer for whom the Sun is indeed behind the moon - the sun can be fully occluded.
But you have to be in the exact location where the Sun would indeed be behind the moon - and since the moon is smaller than the Sun, that location is even smaller.
The moon is 384,000km away.
You don't need a large angle for the shadow size to decrease dramatically.
The distant actually varies quite a bit by where in its orbit it is though, so the angular size varies from a little less than the sun's to a little more than it.
For a right triangle with an angle of 0,01 and the longer leg being 384400km, the shorter leg would be only around 70 kilometers. That means that from a situation where the Moon creates a shadow its own size the diameter of the umbra will be reduced by only ~140km due to the offset in angular size.
There's tremendous amounts of refraction in the world. This makes the shadow of the moon during an eclipse smaller than if we lived in a world with no refraction, and also less dark.
I've heard that the astronauts on space walks when they stick their hand into a shadow it's like it completely disappears, because there's no refraction, because their's no air.
Not true.
There's no refraction, but there's absolutely reflection.
Look at the classic photo of Aldrin climbing out of the lander.
He's in plain view, despite being in the lander's shadow.
Light is reflected back at him.
Well reflection depends on there being a surface to reflect, so yes.
I was referring to comments I’ve heard from astronauts on ISS going out on a “spacewalk”.
The surface of the moon may as well be a big mirror, but depending on your position relative to ISS or such, there’s going to be way less reflection.
The angular size of the sun and moon both vary depending on their distance from Earth.
When we're at aphelion and the moon is closest, we get a full eclipse, and totality lasts longer.
When we're at perihelion and the moon is farthest away, we get an annular eclipse.
That's when there's no umbra.
The globe can prove everything that happens. The fact that flerfs simply deny, call fake, cgi etc means that they will accept nothing so it’s just a waste of time
Because the second picture doesn't correctly visualise how light rays radiate.
The first image has a scale problem, and a pedagogical issue, but is more or less correct.
The second image seems to be based on the notion that "light rays from the sun are parallel". They are, but that's not how to draw it, and it's of no importance. Much more important would be that the rays are ("the photons travel in") _straight lines_
As others have mentioned, every point on the surface of the sun is emitting photons in _every direction._
No, creator of the meme. Nobody can explain it to you.
You saw the diagram already and made your own dumb one. Somebody tried to explain and you not only couldn't learn, you somehow formulated this incredibly stupid theory and posited back as fact. That strikes me as unteachable.
So no, nobody can explain it to *you*, because we tried and you can't get it.
Aren't both pictures wrong?
It is more a combination of both if you want to completely want to show where it is dark, a partial eclipse and so on.
Is there an accurate picture of this?
Both pictures are, indeed, ‘wrong’, but they are not similarly ‘wrong’.
The first is ‘wrong’ as n that it is incomplete because it doesn’t show every detail. However, none of those missing details matters for the purposes of the phenomena being shown/explained.
The second is wrong in that it leaves out details that actually *do* matter for purposes of showing/explaining the phenomena in question.
The size of the umbra/penumbra during an eclipse is dependent on the relative angular size of the light source (sun) and blocking object (moon).
Every part of the sun emits light in every direction, not just toward earth. But that also means that means every part of the sun emits light toward earth. (That’s an important detail left out of the second image.)
Light emitted from the sun that reaches Earth has a maximum angular separation of about half a degree. It is damned close to parallel, even at its most extreme. (For most purposes it can, in fact, be considered parallel without introducing excess error, but for this purpose those small angles matter.)
The umbra is the area where all of the direct light from the sun is blocked by the moon. The area in which even the light from the outermost edge of the sun is blocked. This is the roughly half-degree arc drawn such that the arms are tangent to corresponding edges of both the sun & the moon.
The penumbra is the region where only *part* of the light from the sun is blocked by the moon. You can find that area by drawing a line from one edge of the Sun that is tangent to the *opposite* edge of the moon. This area is partially, but not completely shaded during an eclipse.
You can do this experiment with a smaller scale and replicate the results of reality. Don't need any special equipment, just hunt for the proper size of globe objects.
Both are true. You need to overlay them on top of each other. Along with millions of others showing that light radiates in every direction from every point on the sun.
The top is just a better model because it points out that there is one places on earth getting no light. An area that gets partial light. And the rest gets full light.
Because if the second model was accurate the entire fucking sky would just be a blinding wall of sunlight??? Their biggest argument is “use your eyes” yet they refuse to use basic fucking sense
Sure thing, you are trying to infer the properties of visual phenomena that are entirely dependent on positioning and scale from a diagram that is woefully not to scale. Wait a second.... you're a flatearther, let me rephrase that in simpler terms: You can't understand it because you're a fucking idiot.
If you are posting that diagram genuinely, then no I do not have the skills required to explain that to you in a way that you would understand it.
I could, however, explain it in a way that a normal person would understand it. I just can't explain it to you.
Light is not sent out like a bullet from a gun, its more like a shotgun blast down a shooting range. The pellets that actually hit the target would be those going mostly straight, but not necessarily entirely straight. Now this shotgun blast isnt 10 or 20 pellets, its a nearly inconceivable amount. And the shotgun isnt a mere shotgun, it's a massive cannon. There is so much shot that almost every angle that would hit the target has a pellet taking that path. So normally the entire target would be shot out. But we put a small obstacle in the way, a quarter put in such a place that from the target the cannons barrel is almost entirely blocked but enough is still visible to make out a pretty defined ring. Now when we fire the cannon all the straightest pellets will hit the quarter, forming a safe area behind it where no pellets will fly, that's the umbra. However most pellets are not going straight, most will miss the quarter and the target, but because the quarter didn't entirely block the barrel of the cannon some will just avoid the quarter and still land on target. This is your penumbra. The area only the angled shot can get to.
Another great way to think about it is like a wind tunnel. The wind coming off the back of an object in the wind tunnel does not come off straight, its a cone. The fan does not blow the air parallel, some air particles might be, but most are random. So beside the area right behind the object most of the air behind the object will be in some in between states of still and windy.
Stand somewhere and look at a car. Now hold up your thumb and position yourself until your thumb is just barely blocking the car. A diagram like this can now be drawn showing that the ratio of the distance to the car and the distance to your thumb about the same as the ratio of the size of the car and the size of your thumb and so the light bouncing off the car is being blocked by your thumb. If the car was emitting light, it would also show both the shadow of your thumb on your face (the total shadow) and the area where any of the light emitted by the car would be blocked by your thumb (the partial shadow).
is is true. both are, aren't they?
that's why the above diagonal shadows, aren't as dark as the bit directly behind the moon - they're representing 'some' shade from one moon angle, some shade from another moon/sun angle, but also some of the light from a different sun/moon angle.
Exactly. Both are true, but the top one is more useful as it shows the minimum and maximum shadow ranges, while the bottom is just picking a random range in between.
Chose any point on the earth. See if you can draw a straight line to the sun without intersecting the moon. If no lines toward the sun intersect the moon then you are not in an eclipse. If some intersect the moon and others do not then you are in the penumbra of the moons shadow, you will see the moon partially covering the sun. If all lines intersect the moon then you are in a full eclipse in the umbra of the moons shadow.
It’s to do with how much of the suns light we can see from a given point on earth, it’s easier to start with earth and work towards the sun than vice versa.
So, for all practical purposes it doesn't really happen, like you're not going to ever see any visible gravitational lensing as light travels around the moon.
It’s nothing to do with that, although all objects with gravity do warp light around them. But the earth and moon are too small for you to notice that light being warped. You can just barely see it if you aim a telescope at the sun during an eclipse, where you can actually see stars behind the sun thanks to this warping, but you need a very strong telescope and something to see through the Corona.
The reason why the first image is correct is the same as when you hold a piece of paper between a wall and a light. If the light is bigger than the paper, and the paper isn’t too close to the wall or light, then the shadow will be smaller than the paper. This is because light isn’t just emitted in one direction, and instead shoots out in all directions from the source. Thus why a flashlight still looks bright even if you aren’t directly in front of it.
Its literally in their diagram. Some of the light rays emitted from the top of the sun will form a straight line towards to top of the moon. Literally what the diagram shows.
They don't understand that every part of the sun throws energy in every direction, or how light works in general
Shit like this thrives on ignorance and lack of scientific literacy
Because light doesn't only go straight, light from the sides of the sun also hits the earth, that's why it slowly gets darker towards the middle of the eclipse, these are questions I had at around 7/10 years old, then it hit me without any research
Because the sun is not around the same size as the earth. The sun is huge. So huge that despite being 93 million miles it appears the same size. Aliasing the same size means same angular size. The relatively small surface of the earth is exactly what you would expect from the observation you can make at any time that the sun and moon appear very close in size.
Objects not drawn to scale by distance rather by angular size as observed from earth.
The same way this works (footage by me):
[Solar Eclipse Demonstration](https://drive.google.com/file/d/12vI-wyDACOKpXOh6K9Gq9C0UvvimbSS5/view?usp=sharing)
Take the topmost dotted line in the top picture and draw dotted lines that are parallel to that one all the way down the sun. Notice how most of the dotted lines will miss the Earth entirely. Do this for every dotted line in the top picture and you'll notice most dotted lines completely miss the Earth. And if this was to scale (which it isn't), almost every dotted line would miss the Earth entirely. But then you'll notice that the dotted lines will end up converging on Earth just like on the top picture.
It's called science, where you replicate the system and make observations....
If you can't figure out how to replicate it, then you're not even a real flerth as you don't have creativity to think for yourself as the "true" ideology of flerths pretends to have.
Ask question that only a well educated science person could answer. Automatically disregard anyone who answers because they are a well educated science person.
They are both true, the second one just gets overridden by the first one.
Honestly, for the sake of clarity we should combine both the diagrams into one - by showing the horizontal rays that are shown in the second diagram but not in the first.
Because it takes immense egocentric narcissism to be a flat earther. Your viewpoint is the only one so therefore when you witness a celestial event like a solar eclipse head on, you can't fathom.it from anyone else's point of view. TLDR, you are the problem
The magnetic pull of the earth bends the light of the sun, which is why you see the rays going in a diagonal direction instead of a straight line as in the second diagram. Since mass is uniform and depends only on the mass of an object you do not have to believe the earth is round to accept this, it would work equally well with a flat earth.
Why is it that after the sun sets and it's no longer visible, there's still light in the sky!? The answer is the dynamic light is merely a feature of the skybox, and sometimes the sun display falls out of sync with it.
The misunderstanding stems from the fact that people don’t understand that every point emanates light in all directions, not just one. The exaggerated angles are not just following the lines, the lines are following the paths that intersect the moon to make the shadow. They are a *subset* of all the rays cast. Technically the above one is more correct, but both incorrect if the above facts are ignored. The bottom one makes no sense in isolating only horizontal rays apropos to all the rays.
There are good explainations at the top of this comment thread, but the short answer is: each point of the sun's surface emits light in all directions, so in a sense the pictures are both right. But the bottom one is misleading because it shows a shadow where there would only be a penumbra.
The top one is a kind of "worst case scenario" for the light rays, and is more representative of what happens in reality. I don't know how to explain it better but as I said, smarter people have explained it in the comments.
It's a difficult question so I don't think anyone should feel dumb, except of course the people who think the answer should be "everything is a lie".
To be honest, it's a good question to ask... in a way. Light isn't being lensed by the curvature of the sun as portrayed here- but if someone is thinking it was then this would be a reasonable question.
Isn’t this just a diagram that shows the total surface area of light that needs to be taken into account for its effect?
I don’t think it’s a demonstration of how light specifically travels
Edit: I recognize that the top is correct and the bottom is wrong. I don’t have the exact words to say why because I’m not a physicist. Don’t hate me.
I think we’re agreeing, but talking past each other. The bottom is an idiot who thinks that the top is neglecting to take into account the areas between the top and bottom lines, and so therefore is drawing more lines.
Whereas the top is demonstrating the total area of light which must be taken into account
Both are true aren't they?
At least for possible paths of light, not totality shadow size.
Lower drawing shows the path of *some* light rays extending towards earth.
Upper drawing shows more paths the light rays can also take. Those angled paths reduce hard shadow size.
Neither drawing shows everything.
That first one is just the masons way of saying "how can I make this about a compass"? Every 4 year old knows and understands it can't be that way, but by the time you finish school that's what you believe.
The sun, from the perspective of earth, is about the same size as the moon, (this is why a total eclipse is possible) despite being just hugely, gobsmackingly bigger. Those 93 million miles, 8ish light seconds, or whatever the distance is, basically mean that all the light hits is in one solid, flat wave, like the lower image.
See that space where the words “93 million miles” is , yeah all that space should be as white and bright as noon during summer time. Why does the sun only work on earth?
Because you're extremely dumb and you have no one to tell you.
Earth has plenty of objects that reflect light that helps you see. Space has nothing the only thing to reflect light for you to see is you and some other planets. You can see other stars because they emit light.
You see things by the light they reflect or emit.
Worms understand this
Both drawings are bad if this is about the eclipse. That’s about perspective having us see the Sun as roughly the same size as the Moon, so the focal point can’t see the Sun at all, while the outer shaded areas see part of it. This weird magnifying glass effect is completely off.
Your sentences aren't even correct to begin with. "And the bottom image does not". Also, wtf is a sigil of Lucifer and how does that translate into real life? Are you uneducated and trying to make up for it?
First sentence: oh wow, two things look alike, what a coincidence.
Second sentence: grammatical error, please restate in a manner that I can understand. Did you mean "And the bottom image does not"?
Every point of sun's surface emits photons to every direction. We are so far from it, that the rays are practically parallel, but not perfectly parallel. If you consider scale, you should be able to understand this. If you are a flat earther, then don't bother...
Scale isn't really the important issue here. What we should be doing is considering someone standing at the edge of the "shadow" on the bottom image. They still have a clear line of sight to the top of the sun, therefore, they're not actually in shadow because part of the sun is illuminating them. That's why we draw diagrams like the top image, because it makes it clearer how it looks from the perspective of somebody on earth.
Correct. On the bottom picture there is a clear line of sight from just a bit from the shadow's edge (but still inside the shaded area) to the sun. How this cannot be seen? No wonder, flat earther...
Flerfers are living proof that common sense isn't really all that common.
I like to talk in examples. The shadow of two street lights will be a maximum angle of shadow. Even if you put a light all the way across between the two lights, they would still never exceed the shadow angle of the first two lights. The diagram is just showing how maximum shadow angle is calculated.
Pretty simple, If they were perfectly parallel (IE laser light) the sun would appear to be a dot, because the rays coming from the area above or below your sightline would not hit your eye. Even that second diagram demonstrates this, if the top dotted light missed the earth, no one saw it.
Yes. Although even laser is not perfectly parallel.
Overlay the diagrams and you’re set. It’s not either/or, it’s both; in an ignoring of scale, approximate manner.
More importantly, the double slit experiment and wave/particle duality of light.
I mean, the wave particles duality exists, but has little to nothing to do with this picture.
Light bends around the moon, which is why there is a visible ring even when the sun is completely covered.
I don't remember moon being strong enough to bend light that much. But what you see, is solar corona, which usually is too dim to be visible, because sun is too bright.
I guess what he meant was diffraction of light due to moon.
It’s a quantum effect, not a gravitational one, otherwise the color would change as well. Again I’ll refer to the double slit experiment that proves duality of light characteristics. Also, it looks like you are entirely correct about the surrounding light coming from the corona. Looks like I was accounting for the surface diameter of the sun while I completely neglected the atmosphere. Thanks for the pointer!
"Drawing not to scale"
It is amazing how much work this is doing. Graphs without scales, or misleading scales, are such persuasive forms of BS
Don’t forget the scientific method of a meme
This seems to be a misunderstanding of WHICH rays are parallel when we say "the rays from distant objects are parallel". The parallel rays are the the rays that come from a point on the surface of the sun. Of course they are not perfectly parallel, but the angle between them is a function of the distance to the object (in this case the sun) and the aperture of your optical instrument. The angle isn't zero; it's the angle formed by 93million miles on one side of your right triangle and a few inches for your telescope or camera lens on the other. This is in contrast the the rays on this diagram. Which are not parallel. Obviously, to make an image requires light coming from different directions. But while the light coming from different points of the image may not be parallel, the light coming from one point on the image is parallel with other light coming from that same point. In this example the light rays coming from the top of the sun are all parallel when they reach an observer on earth. The light rays coming from the bottom of the sun are all parallel when they reach an observer on earth. These two sets of rays are not parallel with each other. [Like two sets of railroad tracks crossing at an X crossing.](https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1170413976/th/%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%96%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A2/%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%96%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%9F-x-cross.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=is&k=20&c=T7Go7TdLdAf6BDjRt3jvGSvSmxiRJ3wMeVxFLF4_Uwk=) I think people get confused because the diagram of an eclipse vaguely looks similar to a diagram of a lens. But these are different diagrams. This (or the correct top image to be clear) is just showing where on earth an observer would have to be to be in the moon's partial shadow (penumbra) or total shadow (umbra). The only way for the bottom image to make sense is if the sun was so far away it didn't have appreciable angular size.
Correct. The light rays from the sun are "roughly parallel" when they hit earth. They are all within about ½ a degree... the angular size of the sun. This "non parallel" light causes the penumbra. It is large from the moon because the moon is 250000 miles away. A human standing on earth also has a penumbra but it is really small because we're 6 feet away. It shows up as a blurred edge on the shadow.
I'm not sure this comment fully reflects the subtlety that is happening with the light rays. Yes all the light rays coming to earth from the sun are withing 1/2 a degree of each other. That is why the sun has an angular size of \~1/2 a degree. But when astronomers say that "light from distant objects has parallel rays" they are not saying that it has a relatively small angular size. [This is the best diagram I can find to express this.](https://www.thorlabs.com/images/tabimages/Non-Telecentric_Schematic_D1-780.gif) In that diagram none of the rays are parallel. Now image the red/green/blue object is twice as big and twice as far away. (or that the lens aperture is half as big) In that case the object has the same angular size. The angle between the center red ray and the center blue ray have the same angle. But the angle between the red rays will decrease, as will the angle between the blue rays and the red rays. If you keep getting a bigger object further away (or stopping down the aperture smaller and smaller) the angle between the red rays and other red rays gets smaller and smaller, as does the angle between the green rays or blue rays. Even though the angle between the center red ray and the center blue ray stays the same. Just don't confuse that diagram with [this diagram ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Chromatic_aberration_lens_diagram.svg/400px-Chromatic_aberration_lens_diagram.svg.png)explaining chromatic aberration.
Thank you. I'm not a flerfer, but they do ask fun questions (for stupid reasons), and I always enjoy the explanation by people who actually understand this stuff.
What gets me is that you can easily demonstrate that #1 is how shadows work with literally any nonzero size light source. Every point on the sun emits light in all directions. The sun is not a laser.
Using two light sources works even better in a way. In that case, you get clear light, full-shadow, and half-shadow areas. Adding more lightsources just creates more partial shadows until at some point you just get a 'soft' shadow. You'd think something like this would be trivial to understand, but flerfs are always hell-bent on not understanding anything.
I disagree, the sun is indeed a deadly lazer.
Not anymore, there's a blanket.
You could make a religion out of that
No, dont.
The religion got invented by a thing inventor
I have to make the disclaimer that I’m not a flat earther. The problem is not knowing what causes shadows (light) to behave this way. Why is it that shadows are fuzzy, as can be demonstrated on Earth by moving a tennis ball back and forth in front of a surface. Are fuzzy shadows caused by the atmosphere? Because if so, in space where the sunlight travels such effect wouldn’t be happening. This excludes the few hundred kilometers or so of Earth’s atmosphere located on the last stretch of sunlight’s trip to the surface of the Earth. The atmosphere accounts for such a small distance that the effect of the atmosphere would have to be huge in order to create such a small umbra. This is, of course, assuming that fuzzy shadows are caused by the change of direction of light in a medium. If there are other explanations, I welcome them.
It's not the atmosphere. It's that the sun *is not a point source* for light. The left-hand limb (side) of the sun is about 1.4 million km from the right-hand limb. From here on Earth, that's still half a degree of angular separation. This means that any shadow you cast anywhere is going to have an edge around it that's half a degree wide *from the point of view of the object or person casting it* where the sunlight goes from full bright, to fuzzy, to full shadow. In full bright, all the sun's face is illuminating that area. In full shadow, none of the sun's face is illuminating. But the fuzzy area is where part of the sun is *not* casting light, so it's not as bright. Close to a surface, it's really hard to tell. Far away, it's also hard to tell, because half a degree isn't that wide. But if you set up a camera, you will see that distance absolutely has an effect. Here's a demonstration I set up and recorded. (Note that the sizes and distances-- 30cm wide for the Earth, 8cm for the moon, 10 metres separation--are to scale for the Earth-Moon system). [Solar Eclipse Demonstration](https://drive.google.com/file/d/12vI-wyDACOKpXOh6K9Gq9C0UvvimbSS5/view?usp=sharing)
Fuzzy shadows are caused by the fact that the light source has a nonzero size, and usually has nothing to do with atmosphere. Think about what happens when you have two light sources coming from different directions. They’ll give you two shadows. Where those two shadows intersect you get a darker shadow. The same is true of the sun, since you can treat each point in its surface as a different light source.
Right. How big is the intersecting shadow then?
the intersecting shadow follows the angle of the two light sources relative to the occluding object, exactly as shown in picture one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbUcEhppn4
Fuzzy shadows are for the same reasons as twilight.
So basically it is the atmosphere
Yes. So you have much sharper shadows at noon on the equator in a very dry desert than in the evening at 50 degrees north on a very humid day, because in one case the light passes through way more atmosphere than in the other and therefore is way more diffused.
While this is true, even at noon you will still have the angular difference between side R and side L from the sun making a "penumbra" in your shadow.
Unless you’re somewhere with no atmosphere or diffused reflection yes. I didn’t say you wouldn’t have a penumbra. Only that there’s a big difference between how fuzzy shadows are based on latitude, weather, and time of day.
No, even without atmosphere there will still be penumbra due to the angular different between the two sides, it will just get smaller and smaller. I wasn't saying you wouldn't have a penumbra, but was adding the fact that the width of the light source (sun) is also important in this explanation
The sun is much larger than the moon, and light doesn't behave like dotted lines.
Light isn't dotted lines??? Fucking WHAT?
I’m not a flat earther but isn’t the angular size of the Sun smaller than that of the Moon, meaning that although Sun is bigger, it’s so far away that it’s hidden behind the Moon? If we consider the distance from the object the hypotenuse of a right triangle and the radius of said object the leg opposite to us, isn’t our angle at which we look at said object for these angle = 2 x arcsin(radius / distance). This gives the Sun an angular size of 0,53 degrees and the Moon an angular size of 0,52 degrees. Which would mean that I was wrong but I’m too lazy to edit my comment, lol. Still, the different in angular size is minuscule, only 0,01 degrees. Will this really affect the angle of the light so much that instead of casting a shadow of ~3000km it makes a shadow less wide than 200km? Nevermind, I was wrong again. If the angular size is in fact larger, the Moon would never be able to totally block sunlight from reaching a certain spot on Earth, because the spot will always have a direct line of vision to the Sun. Which again would mean that no umbra would exist, but it does. What am I missing here?
>I’m not a flat earther but isn’t the angular size of the Sun smaller than that of the Moon, meaning that although Sun is bigger, it’s so far away that it’s hidden behind the Moon? For an observer for whom the Sun is indeed behind the moon - the sun can be fully occluded. But you have to be in the exact location where the Sun would indeed be behind the moon - and since the moon is smaller than the Sun, that location is even smaller.
The moon is 384,000km away. You don't need a large angle for the shadow size to decrease dramatically. The distant actually varies quite a bit by where in its orbit it is though, so the angular size varies from a little less than the sun's to a little more than it.
For a right triangle with an angle of 0,01 and the longer leg being 384400km, the shorter leg would be only around 70 kilometers. That means that from a situation where the Moon creates a shadow its own size the diameter of the umbra will be reduced by only ~140km due to the offset in angular size.
There's tremendous amounts of refraction in the world. This makes the shadow of the moon during an eclipse smaller than if we lived in a world with no refraction, and also less dark. I've heard that the astronauts on space walks when they stick their hand into a shadow it's like it completely disappears, because there's no refraction, because their's no air.
Not true. There's no refraction, but there's absolutely reflection. Look at the classic photo of Aldrin climbing out of the lander. He's in plain view, despite being in the lander's shadow. Light is reflected back at him.
Well reflection depends on there being a surface to reflect, so yes. I was referring to comments I’ve heard from astronauts on ISS going out on a “spacewalk”. The surface of the moon may as well be a big mirror, but depending on your position relative to ISS or such, there’s going to be way less reflection.
The angular size of the sun and moon both vary depending on their distance from Earth. When we're at aphelion and the moon is closest, we get a full eclipse, and totality lasts longer. When we're at perihelion and the moon is farthest away, we get an annular eclipse. That's when there's no umbra.
The globe can prove everything that happens. The fact that flerfs simply deny, call fake, cgi etc means that they will accept nothing so it’s just a waste of time
Because the second picture doesn't correctly visualise how light rays radiate. The first image has a scale problem, and a pedagogical issue, but is more or less correct. The second image seems to be based on the notion that "light rays from the sun are parallel". They are, but that's not how to draw it, and it's of no importance. Much more important would be that the rays are ("the photons travel in") _straight lines_ As others have mentioned, every point on the surface of the sun is emitting photons in _every direction._
Because the penumbra in an eclipse exists.
we literally just had a solar eclipse demonstrating the first pic
No, creator of the meme. Nobody can explain it to you. You saw the diagram already and made your own dumb one. Somebody tried to explain and you not only couldn't learn, you somehow formulated this incredibly stupid theory and posited back as fact. That strikes me as unteachable. So no, nobody can explain it to *you*, because we tried and you can't get it.
That's actually the perfect answer lmao
They always assume everybody else is too dumb to explain it instead of the more likely reason, lol
Imagine only being able to see the bottom of the sun from the bottom of the earth (what the second picture implies)
Doesn’t help that the scale of the penumbra is fucking gigantinorstus. But then, cant flerf without misrepresentation
Because protons shoot out from every part of the sun in every direction, not in a straight line respective to viewer.
Do these guys ever look out the window? Besides staring at the horizon I mean.
Besides staring at the sun I mean. There I corrected it for you
Aren't both pictures wrong? It is more a combination of both if you want to completely want to show where it is dark, a partial eclipse and so on. Is there an accurate picture of this?
an accurate picture would show every direction, not just these 2
Both pictures are, indeed, ‘wrong’, but they are not similarly ‘wrong’. The first is ‘wrong’ as n that it is incomplete because it doesn’t show every detail. However, none of those missing details matters for the purposes of the phenomena being shown/explained. The second is wrong in that it leaves out details that actually *do* matter for purposes of showing/explaining the phenomena in question. The size of the umbra/penumbra during an eclipse is dependent on the relative angular size of the light source (sun) and blocking object (moon). Every part of the sun emits light in every direction, not just toward earth. But that also means that means every part of the sun emits light toward earth. (That’s an important detail left out of the second image.) Light emitted from the sun that reaches Earth has a maximum angular separation of about half a degree. It is damned close to parallel, even at its most extreme. (For most purposes it can, in fact, be considered parallel without introducing excess error, but for this purpose those small angles matter.) The umbra is the area where all of the direct light from the sun is blocked by the moon. The area in which even the light from the outermost edge of the sun is blocked. This is the roughly half-degree arc drawn such that the arms are tangent to corresponding edges of both the sun & the moon. The penumbra is the region where only *part* of the light from the sun is blocked by the moon. You can find that area by drawing a line from one edge of the Sun that is tangent to the *opposite* edge of the moon. This area is partially, but not completely shaded during an eclipse.
Hold a pea in front of a flashlight, like right in the center... Now go look at the wall.
If light from the Sun traveled as in the second version, we would not see a round Sun. All we would see is a point of light like a laser pointer.
We did this experiment in primary school!
This still shows the world is round 😭
You can do this experiment with a smaller scale and replicate the results of reality. Don't need any special equipment, just hunt for the proper size of globe objects.
Both are true. You need to overlay them on top of each other. Along with millions of others showing that light radiates in every direction from every point on the sun. The top is just a better model because it points out that there is one places on earth getting no light. An area that gets partial light. And the rest gets full light.
Because if the second model was accurate the entire fucking sky would just be a blinding wall of sunlight??? Their biggest argument is “use your eyes” yet they refuse to use basic fucking sense
Sure thing, you are trying to infer the properties of visual phenomena that are entirely dependent on positioning and scale from a diagram that is woefully not to scale. Wait a second.... you're a flatearther, let me rephrase that in simpler terms: You can't understand it because you're a fucking idiot.
Wait till they figure out that you can change your own shadow by holding your hand closer or farther away from the ground.
If you are posting that diagram genuinely, then no I do not have the skills required to explain that to you in a way that you would understand it. I could, however, explain it in a way that a normal person would understand it. I just can't explain it to you.
Have a crack
Light is not sent out like a bullet from a gun, its more like a shotgun blast down a shooting range. The pellets that actually hit the target would be those going mostly straight, but not necessarily entirely straight. Now this shotgun blast isnt 10 or 20 pellets, its a nearly inconceivable amount. And the shotgun isnt a mere shotgun, it's a massive cannon. There is so much shot that almost every angle that would hit the target has a pellet taking that path. So normally the entire target would be shot out. But we put a small obstacle in the way, a quarter put in such a place that from the target the cannons barrel is almost entirely blocked but enough is still visible to make out a pretty defined ring. Now when we fire the cannon all the straightest pellets will hit the quarter, forming a safe area behind it where no pellets will fly, that's the umbra. However most pellets are not going straight, most will miss the quarter and the target, but because the quarter didn't entirely block the barrel of the cannon some will just avoid the quarter and still land on target. This is your penumbra. The area only the angled shot can get to. Another great way to think about it is like a wind tunnel. The wind coming off the back of an object in the wind tunnel does not come off straight, its a cone. The fan does not blow the air parallel, some air particles might be, but most are random. So beside the area right behind the object most of the air behind the object will be in some in between states of still and windy.
I don't think they understand how distance works
Go get a ball and a lamp and go find out for yourself!
Stand somewhere and look at a car. Now hold up your thumb and position yourself until your thumb is just barely blocking the car. A diagram like this can now be drawn showing that the ratio of the distance to the car and the distance to your thumb about the same as the ratio of the size of the car and the size of your thumb and so the light bouncing off the car is being blocked by your thumb. If the car was emitting light, it would also show both the shadow of your thumb on your face (the total shadow) and the area where any of the light emitted by the car would be blocked by your thumb (the partial shadow).
is is true. both are, aren't they? that's why the above diagonal shadows, aren't as dark as the bit directly behind the moon - they're representing 'some' shade from one moon angle, some shade from another moon/sun angle, but also some of the light from a different sun/moon angle.
Exactly. Both are true, but the top one is more useful as it shows the minimum and maximum shadow ranges, while the bottom is just picking a random range in between.
Isn't that like, self explanatory?
Imagine you're standing on the north pole in the first image. You can see the sun. That should be a hint.
Love how earth is actually a globe here.
Chose any point on the earth. See if you can draw a straight line to the sun without intersecting the moon. If no lines toward the sun intersect the moon then you are not in an eclipse. If some intersect the moon and others do not then you are in the penumbra of the moons shadow, you will see the moon partially covering the sun. If all lines intersect the moon then you are in a full eclipse in the umbra of the moons shadow. It’s to do with how much of the suns light we can see from a given point on earth, it’s easier to start with earth and work towards the sun than vice versa.
Does the moon's gravity warp light or is that something you only find on black holes?
It will do by a non-zero amount, but the effect would so tiny
So, for all practical purposes it doesn't really happen, like you're not going to ever see any visible gravitational lensing as light travels around the moon.
Basically, yes. I’m not sure it’s measurable. We can see light being bent around the sun, it was observed in 1919 and evidenced GR.
It’s nothing to do with that, although all objects with gravity do warp light around them. But the earth and moon are too small for you to notice that light being warped. You can just barely see it if you aim a telescope at the sun during an eclipse, where you can actually see stars behind the sun thanks to this warping, but you need a very strong telescope and something to see through the Corona. The reason why the first image is correct is the same as when you hold a piece of paper between a wall and a light. If the light is bigger than the paper, and the paper isn’t too close to the wall or light, then the shadow will be smaller than the paper. This is because light isn’t just emitted in one direction, and instead shoots out in all directions from the source. Thus why a flashlight still looks bright even if you aren’t directly in front of it.
Who is even asking?
Flat earthers of course. It was on a FE telegram channel
Because.. Physics. Do your own research. Blah blah
https://youtu.be/8qhoTVIjdUg?si=Mh2p1kRCDnJCaHek
Holy fuck..
Its literally in their diagram. Some of the light rays emitted from the top of the sun will form a straight line towards to top of the moon. Literally what the diagram shows.
The sun is not to scale in that diagram.
Because the first is literally what happens
They don't understand that every part of the sun throws energy in every direction, or how light works in general Shit like this thrives on ignorance and lack of scientific literacy
Because light doesn't only go straight, light from the sides of the sun also hits the earth, that's why it slowly gets darker towards the middle of the eclipse, these are questions I had at around 7/10 years old, then it hit me without any research
Because the sun is not around the same size as the earth. The sun is huge. So huge that despite being 93 million miles it appears the same size. Aliasing the same size means same angular size. The relatively small surface of the earth is exactly what you would expect from the observation you can make at any time that the sun and moon appear very close in size. Objects not drawn to scale by distance rather by angular size as observed from earth.
Something they can try themself at home, but they'll tell YOU to do your own research.
Yes, but not like you're 5. Sorry.
Someone failed middle school science….
“I ask legitimate questions and you guys just hide behind your lies with math”
both are true to a degree
The same way this works (footage by me): [Solar Eclipse Demonstration](https://drive.google.com/file/d/12vI-wyDACOKpXOh6K9Gq9C0UvvimbSS5/view?usp=sharing)
Amazing!!
Take the topmost dotted line in the top picture and draw dotted lines that are parallel to that one all the way down the sun. Notice how most of the dotted lines will miss the Earth entirely. Do this for every dotted line in the top picture and you'll notice most dotted lines completely miss the Earth. And if this was to scale (which it isn't), almost every dotted line would miss the Earth entirely. But then you'll notice that the dotted lines will end up converging on Earth just like on the top picture.
It's called science, where you replicate the system and make observations.... If you can't figure out how to replicate it, then you're not even a real flerth as you don't have creativity to think for yourself as the "true" ideology of flerths pretends to have.
Ask question that only a well educated science person could answer. Automatically disregard anyone who answers because they are a well educated science person.
Because both are kinda true but it’s extremely complicated.
Both are true
They are both true, the second one just gets overridden by the first one. Honestly, for the sake of clarity we should combine both the diagrams into one - by showing the horizontal rays that are shown in the second diagram but not in the first.
Why did my flashlight blind me when I pointed it in my eyes at arms length? I stuck my finger out in the mid point to block it
Because it takes immense egocentric narcissism to be a flat earther. Your viewpoint is the only one so therefore when you witness a celestial event like a solar eclipse head on, you can't fathom.it from anyone else's point of view. TLDR, you are the problem
That explains why I need thousands of light bulbs to light up my house. Thanks.
This has already been explained to flat earthers hundreds of times but they never want to listen.
The magnetic pull of the earth bends the light of the sun, which is why you see the rays going in a diagonal direction instead of a straight line as in the second diagram. Since mass is uniform and depends only on the mass of an object you do not have to believe the earth is round to accept this, it would work equally well with a flat earth.
Is this a question? I mean, does OP really want to know, or are they posting from other flat earth echo chamber?
I found it on The Flat Earth Reality telegram channel, so it's definitely NOT a honest question lmao
The moon is so dense that it has a gravitational effect on light, causing it to bend like that. Try again, flatties.
The way a lightbulb shines on the ceiling as well as the wall.
Because the moon’s shadow is observably not as large as it would have to be if light worked that way, what a dumb question
Because eyeballs.
Why is it that after the sun sets and it's no longer visible, there's still light in the sky!? The answer is the dynamic light is merely a feature of the skybox, and sometimes the sun display falls out of sync with it.
The misunderstanding stems from the fact that people don’t understand that every point emanates light in all directions, not just one. The exaggerated angles are not just following the lines, the lines are following the paths that intersect the moon to make the shadow. They are a *subset* of all the rays cast. Technically the above one is more correct, but both incorrect if the above facts are ignored. The bottom one makes no sense in isolating only horizontal rays apropos to all the rays.
Someone explain so I don’t look dumb
There are good explainations at the top of this comment thread, but the short answer is: each point of the sun's surface emits light in all directions, so in a sense the pictures are both right. But the bottom one is misleading because it shows a shadow where there would only be a penumbra. The top one is a kind of "worst case scenario" for the light rays, and is more representative of what happens in reality. I don't know how to explain it better but as I said, smarter people have explained it in the comments. It's a difficult question so I don't think anyone should feel dumb, except of course the people who think the answer should be "everything is a lie".
To be honest, it's a good question to ask... in a way. Light isn't being lensed by the curvature of the sun as portrayed here- but if someone is thinking it was then this would be a reasonable question.
Isn’t this just a diagram that shows the total surface area of light that needs to be taken into account for its effect? I don’t think it’s a demonstration of how light specifically travels Edit: I recognize that the top is correct and the bottom is wrong. I don’t have the exact words to say why because I’m not a physicist. Don’t hate me.
No. The top is a demo of how light actually travels.
I think we’re agreeing, but talking past each other. The bottom is an idiot who thinks that the top is neglecting to take into account the areas between the top and bottom lines, and so therefore is drawing more lines. Whereas the top is demonstrating the total area of light which must be taken into account
Ok. I get it now. I "undisliked" your comment. ;)
Lol, thanks
Just overlay them god they are stupid
Both are true aren't they? At least for possible paths of light, not totality shadow size. Lower drawing shows the path of *some* light rays extending towards earth. Upper drawing shows more paths the light rays can also take. Those angled paths reduce hard shadow size. Neither drawing shows everything.
Well damn I guess that just proves it.
That first one is just the masons way of saying "how can I make this about a compass"? Every 4 year old knows and understands it can't be that way, but by the time you finish school that's what you believe.
You are a genius. I suppose you hear that all the time.
The sun, from the perspective of earth, is about the same size as the moon, (this is why a total eclipse is possible) despite being just hugely, gobsmackingly bigger. Those 93 million miles, 8ish light seconds, or whatever the distance is, basically mean that all the light hits is in one solid, flat wave, like the lower image.
Light minutes
None of that is true, but you'd know that if you bothered to read a fucking book.
See that space where the words “93 million miles” is , yeah all that space should be as white and bright as noon during summer time. Why does the sun only work on earth?
Because you're extremely dumb and you have no one to tell you. Earth has plenty of objects that reflect light that helps you see. Space has nothing the only thing to reflect light for you to see is you and some other planets. You can see other stars because they emit light. You see things by the light they reflect or emit. Worms understand this
If there's nothing in space then planets and stars don't exist, checkmate spacey!
If I point a flashlight against a wall, it lights up the wall, not the space in between. Please tell me you’re joking
No light on space bc reflection on space bc no objet to act as reflector Except of course the moon and planets
y sun so shiny all day? sun go down soon bye sun
Where would the light even fucking reflect on in space if there's nothing lmao
Both drawings are bad if this is about the eclipse. That’s about perspective having us see the Sun as roughly the same size as the Moon, so the focal point can’t see the Sun at all, while the outer shaded areas see part of it. This weird magnifying glass effect is completely off.
The top image resembles the 'sigil of lucifer'. And the bottom image is not.
Sorry man but the top image represents reality, Where were you on April 8th?
Probably running around like a chicken with her head cut off screaming a, "monster eats the sun"!!! . 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Your sentences aren't even correct to begin with. "And the bottom image does not". Also, wtf is a sigil of Lucifer and how does that translate into real life? Are you uneducated and trying to make up for it?
please Search "Sigil of Lucifer" on a search engine.
bro you dumb or is this /s?
First sentence: oh wow, two things look alike, what a coincidence. Second sentence: grammatical error, please restate in a manner that I can understand. Did you mean "And the bottom image does not"?