Moon light? No... Moon heavy...
đ¤Ąđ¤Ąđ¤Ą
Submitted â¨â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago⊠by â¨fossilesque@mander.xyz⊠to â¨science_memes@mander.xyzâŠ
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/d3c314b3-bfbb-48e6-ba2e-a23349042466.jpeg
Comments
doomcanoe@piefed.social â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
TriflingToad@lemmy.world â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
moon heavy? no⌠Moon floatâŚ
fartographer@lemmy.world â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Moon float? No⌠Moon rocksâŚ
Okokimup@lemmy.world â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Moon float? NoâŚmoon milkshake.
9point6@lemmy.world â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Cargo space? No⌠car go roadâŚ
TriflingToad@lemmy.world â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
I miss r/flat earth where the comments were like a 5050 if it was satire or genuinely someone from Facebook believing it
NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
âhow does the mirror know whatâs behind the paper?!â
yetAnotherUser@lemmy.ca â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
I think Iâm not smart enough to understand this
fox2263@lemmy.world â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
I think theyâre saying the moon isnât glowing with the astronauts on it.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
But ⌠itâs clearly illuminated
yetAnotherUser@lemmy.ca â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Thank you for the explanation. I initially didnât understand that what was being disscussed was the moonâs brightness, as the original Facebook post didnât mention it explicitly.
Bonus@mander.xyz â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Dude = literally bathed in light
Kolanaki@pawb.social â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Earthlight?
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Just regular sunlight. The ânightâ sky might throw off your intuition, but no atmosphere = no sky
Kolanaki@pawb.social â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Moonlight is also technically sunlight. Itâs being reflected by the surface of the moon back onto Earth. If you were on the dark side of the moon while Earth was still visible on that side, I wonder how bright it would be lit up from light reflecting off Earth.
Thorry@feddit.org â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Fun fact, the Moon actually has a very low albedo, meaning itâs actually not all that reflective. The surface differs a bit, depending on the composition. But overall itâs quite close to a dark asphalt.
Our eyes (or more our brains) are very good at high dynamic range and discerning details. Thatâs why a Moon rising may look huge, bright and beautiful. But when you try and take a picture, it looks terrible.
Now this isnât to say the moon isnât actually bright when standing upon it. The Moon is at the same distance more or less to the Sun as the Earth and the lack of atmosphere causes the contrast to be higher. We all know standing outside on a bright day will be pretty damned bright. Even when looking at a darker surface like a road, it can be bright out. Thus we wear sunglasses, as did the astronauts, just integrated into their visors. And our eyes adjust to let in less light, as to not blind us.
And our cameras need to be set differently, to prevent the picture from being blown out. Usually automatically, but with fancy or old cameras manually. The astronauts did the same, making it very hard to estimate how bright the surface actually is. If we were to lock our camera on Earth, taking a picture of the bright Moon in the night sky. Then go to the Moonâs surface and take another picture with the same settings, the brightness would be the same. However the picture would be a pretty terrible one.
Humans are terrible at estimating things like brightness, because our eyes and brains adjust to the light level. This is required to make us better at seeing the world and thus surviving, but not as good at being scientific measuring devices. Thus weâve used our tools to create actual scientific measuring devices and have mapped the albedo of the Moon. And wouldnât you know it, itâs all perfectly consistent, who would have thought?
This is the thing about all these Facebook conspiracies. They are often based on actual real mismatches. Things that make you go: âHmmm that IS weird!â. But then instead of doing the research and finding out the answer (which usually takes about 5 mins of searching), they abuse the confusion to promote their bullshit theories. Sometimes it will be just straight up lies, but sometimes itâs actually an interesting thing that lies beneath.
Iâve also noticed a lot of them can also be easily defeated when they claim stuff, that it only supports their case if it were always the case. Like for example flat earth because no plane routes that travel between certain places on the southern hemisphere. That would be a strong point for them, except 1 min of googling shows there are actually active plane routes that would be impossible on a flat earth. With live tracking available and people posting on social media getting on and off these planes. Or for example the Earth only being 6000 years old because dino bones are plastic in museums. Sure if all dino bones were plastic, that would be a strong point. But in a lot of cases there are a lot of actual bones. Augmented with plastic to show a full skeleton, where only a partial one was dug up. Which is often plainly stated next to the bones, if those idiots could read of course. Or the skull being hung at the top made from plastic, with the real actual skull in a display next to it, so people can look at it closely.
Flat earth is so dumb, it can be disproven in a billion different ways in very little time. Iâm not convinced anyone actually believes that crap. They also do basically nothing to disprove the round(ish) Earth model, they just say itâs nonsense because they say it is. And invent crazy dumb shit for their own âtheoriesâ that arenât even internally consistent.
I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Not that you asked, but Iâve been learning to shoot with a fancy camera and here are some pictures of the moon I took.
ImageImageImageImageImage
xylol@leminal.space â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
I didnt expect to read about camera exposures and flat earth when I started
ideonek@piefed.social â¨5⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
I heard this is the same phenomenon behind the gold-white/blue-black dress. Depending on your subconcious assamption about if the picture is well or purely lit, your eyes and brains make a massive adjustment to what you acctuall perecive.