its something like this, observe how defined the edge of the shadow is:
you would see it with the naked eye as that picture, maybe youve seen some, i did
the key is the transition between light and shadow, how can that be defined, lets check the all knowing internet for an answer:
yeah seems theres a step between the umbra and penumbra, the umbra is in total shadow while the penumbra has some light though not full sunlight
in other words the umbra is 100% dark and the penumbra 50% dark and in that transition between 50% and 100% shadow you see the defined edge of the eclipse we could see before
are you satisfied with this majoritary and actually only acepted explanation?
then check this drawing of mine:
yes mine has what in painting is called a gradient, a difumination, it goes from 100% dark to zero% dark slowly and progresively
the main problem is that the WRONG explanation for moon eclipses fills utterly and absolutely the net while my view of it remains dark cornered and difficult to find
you may see thats just a simplification, its just easier to paint this way, a gradient its difficult to paint, mine is not so good in fact but the idea remains clear
but the poblem is that without simplification theres no explanation, its this simplification which gives birth to the explanation, so if you elliminate the simplification you eliminate the explanation
then on this battle of art against science me, an artist scores a full blow in the nose to scientists who all fell in the same mistake, the blind man guiding the blind man for centuries, an example of copying, the death of originality
come on it just had needed an scientist for some afition to paint who had thought a gradient in the diagram would look neat
but no creativity is forbidden, better not to be signaled and do as the rest do
or is it trully a conspiracy to hide the frightening fact the sky is a dome and all is a lie
do you see anything odd in this picture?
think about it:
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario