eclipse shadows can not be explained by science. they are paranormal. of course the truth is this entire world is paranormal and science is bullshit.
>>42835715Black sun causes the eclipse, not the moon. Your pic is proof of this
>>42835715Look at how a camera works.
>>42835715>>42837484Nah, ya'll are just stoopid.Unfortunate to be you. Keep guessing, it won't help.You wouldn't be able to comprehend the truth even when it is explained to you and you see it for yourself.
>>42835715It can be fully explained by cience, nothing supernatural here, what can't be explained by cience is just how dense and massive your mom is and how she isn't collapsing on her self and creating a black hole.
look up bokeh effect
>>42835715troll or idiot.lets all ignore this thread and move on
>>42837484Hail Kali Ma.All will kneel.
>>42835715Did you know an eclipse was how Einstein’s theory of relativity was proven? Einstein had posited that large bodies of mass curved light. A British scientist named Eddington figured out that if an eclipse was photographed at the exact same time from two different locations and then overlayed the negatives over each other, if they were not identical it would prove Einstein’s theory. One scientist went to West Africa and the other to Brazil, both with synchronized watches and a specific time to take the photo. Their photos showed different shapes made by the eclipse despite being taken at the exact same time, hence: proof that space bends light.
>>42838272have they redone it?that seems like a flawed study or atleast outdated
literal magic that science will never understand. Good thing a ghost lives in my SLR and allows me to take nice pictures
>>42838622A rainbow is proof that space bends light. The light from the sun passes through water vapor and refracts the color spectrum
>>42838272I'm not sure if I understand, isn't the eclipse going to look different from different points based on the parallax of the moon? Also no idea what the margin of error is but syncing the photos sounds borderline impossible. I'm gonna need to look this one up later.
>>42838622Yes, a number of times.>>42839337> isn't the eclipse going to look different from different points based on the parallax of the moon?They werent looking at the sun or Moon.They were looking at the stars behind the sun.The eclipse just helped cut out the glare from the sun so they could see the stars.And they could see that their relative positions appeared changed, slightly warped, by the light bending from the gravity well of the sun.
>>42839713>hey were looking at the stars behind the sunohh gotcha that makes a lot more sense. I think I've heard about this one.
>>42835715okay finally an eclipse thread, i live in Spain and went to the top of a mountain around 900 meters above sea level, no clouds in the sky, it was perfectthe totality didn't make any sense, as it looked perfect in shape but i could also see the sun behind it, like a second sun despite the perfect "black hole" ring viewanyone?
>>42841854>i live in SpainWhere at? toledo here.> i could also see the sun behind itIf AI is accurate (I dont care enough to look at good sources), the moon's apparent size was slightly larger than the sun during this one by about .012 degrees. So it isnt that the moon wasnt the right apparent size.My guess would be most likley you are looking at the corona, and much much less likely the moon's gravity is warping space to let you see a light source behind it.
