this one could go troll or dumbass, hard to tell
Probably started as a troll and picked up by dumbasses. Like the Flat Earth Society.
It’s fucking impossible to know nowadays, it has even gone into “this is so crazy that it can’t be a troll” territory. I’m at a loss of words almost daily from the level of idiocy and ignorance that infects every damn comment section everywhere. The bar for most stupid imaginable is racing lower and lower every damn second, and it’s already WAY beyond what should be possible.
Jesus people are dumb.
It’s particularly choice that the reader-added context uses simple.Wikipedia.org
Wait, as far as I understand, this is a wikipedia page for severely Learning disabled people? Great, since I know a lot of idiots.
It’s for children, people with learning difficulties, and/or people still learning English. https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_pages
It’s condensed content with simpler terms and plain English, which is helpful for those who aren’t native speakers, like Gamba said.
Simple wiki also comes in handy in topics like biology, which can have very specialized vocabulary.
But in this context, the people who unironically believe in things like the moon not being a reflector can’t be reasoned with. They won’t change their mind no matter how simple English you explain the fact.
The reflection (scattering) of light can be seen on the picture they choose to make their point. Sure, the comment is correct that anything you can see scatters light otherwise you would not see it, but in the picture it is particular obvious where the light source is from the reflection on the rock.
I wonder if they think “reflection” only means the kind of reflection you see in a mirror.
It’s also a pretty dumb rock to use as an example. If the moon were that color it would be way brighter than it is currently. And with a rock as shiny as that you would clearly see a reflection of the sun as well.
In real life the moon is about as bright as dark asphalt and because of all the dust it is very dull as well. So a matt black paint would probably be closer to what the moon looks like. Still bright as hell compared to the nothingness that surrounds it. Our eyes are also very good at low light conditions, once we get used to the dark a little bit of light goes a long way. So we can even pick out shadows in the moonlight on earth. A brighter moon would be annoying I think, imagine having some nights that look like early evening on a sunny day. But if we evolved with it we would be used to it I guess.
Just like with flat earth the glowing moon theory fails to explain the phases of the moon or things like eclipses. And why the glow doesn’t follow black body radiation, but instead perfectly follows the tell tale signs of reflected sunlight, Fraunhofer lines and all. And where the energy to generate that light would come from, making something glow as bright as the moon takes a lot of power. And why that power source selectively lights some parts some of the time. And where does the sunlight that hits the moon ends up, if it’s not reflected.
I would think it’s a troll, but these days you’d never know. Even if a troll for example claims vaccines cause autism for the grift, idiots still believe it.
Everything in the universe reflects light. Except black holes. Only things you cannot see do not reflect light.
And things in itself that are too small to see with even a microscope do not reflect light right? Light might interact there but will not reflect in the usual sense, it can however emit light though. As far as I understand that is.
There is a lot to it wavelength, size of reflecting object (if it’s smaller than the wavelength it can’t reflect anything back also applies to emitting photons), reflectance or the fraction of light reflected at the surface of the object (the energy it obsorbs vs energy it kicks back), phase shift, if the photon is traveling from one medium to another with a lower or higher refractive index (redirection of a wave as it passess from one medium to another) it will change the oscillations (kinda like a feedback loop, photons effect electrons in the medium and electrons effect photons right back) like looking at a pencil behind a glass of water distorts what you see. I probably missed some things but I gotta admit it always fascinates me to think about light and reflection.
except you can still arguably see things that don’t reflect light, if you were anywhere near a black hole (let’s imagine it has no accretion disk and thus isn’t surrounded by a bunch of light) it’d be pretty obvious what with the bending of light and how it’s a disk of pure blackness against the backdrop of stars.
The event horizon isn’t a physical object. Does a singularity reflect light? (I’m guessing it’s still a no)
Once something moves past the horizon any light that bounced off it would be pulled towards the center with it. Effectively making it non reflective. It’s possible all the energy from being crushed into a singularity causes a glow around it, like the disk around the outer area of a black hole.
If that’s the case, the glow itself would also be sucked immediately into the singularity. Maybe for the shortest of time, on the tiniest plank scale, the singularity produces light.
The only form of “light” (it isn’t really light but radiation, which I’d basically the same as light just that it has a different energy value etc) is the hawking radiation.
The event horizon only obscures objects that are inside it, it has nothing to do with reflectivity of the object itself.
An observer situated between the singularity and an object within the event horizon could still intercept the light reflected from said object.
Never seen a singularity so would have to agree it doesn’t. Visible Event Horizons are made up of matter that does reflect light, but if there is no matter involved only light you would likely see is distorted as it passes through it from other sources
No event horizon is made up of matter. Do you mean the matter around and behind the black hole, by which the location and size of the black hole can be inferred?
