Quote (card_sultan @ Nov 28 2017 08:15pm)
you're argument has no weight and is just typical logical fallacy
https://i.imgur.com/bnXyAl1.jpgyou can see fire but it doesn't create a shadow
and
you simply have no idea whether an object you cant see casts a shadowyou have a hard time between stating an excuse and thinking it means you have crushed and whether or not that excuse you choose to type out in letters has any validity. While you may have stated an excuse -
I can assure you that excuse had no validity.
As for your solar eclipse excuse, that its just line of sight, its just more typical fallacy because we can see at night from the reflected light on the moon - and since the earth is more reflective than the moon - the moon should be light up with Earthshine - enough so that we should be able to make it out but no one can.
And in your example you could still see it was a girl - not just a round object of indeterminate identification - and a result setting the camera for exposure of the light, not for setting exposure for the shadow while even if exposure is set for what you think is the moon during an eclipse - no image of the moon can be made.
@ 1st bold: Actually, I do. Aside from the ridiculous smackdown that russian gave you, an object that is INVISIBLE is, by its very definition, unable to block light waves.
@ 2nd bold: Your assurance means nothing when you can't even explain why it "isn't valid." Selenelion eclipses are completely due to the refraction of light through the curved atmosphere.
The reflected light from the Earth very literally pales in comparison to the light coming around the edges of the moon. It is so bright you can permanently damage your vision by looking at it.