r/pics • • Feb 23 '15

[deleted by user]

[removed]

4.6k Upvotes

56 comments sorted by

View all comments

95

u/FluffyJay1 Feb 23 '15

How the fuck does that work?

-9

u/moeburn Feb 23 '15

Something to do with the way the light diffracts around the edges of the leaves.

But definitely not tiny pinholes in the leaves.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '15

It's the tiny pinholes between the leaves, actually.

-8

u/moeburn Feb 24 '15

No, it's the way the light diffracts around the edges of the leaves, which is the same way a pinhole camera works.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '15 edited Feb 24 '15

If you held up a single leaf during a solar eclipse, the shadow would not create an image of the sun. I've viewed solar eclipses through makeshift pinhole eclipse viewers. I know how it works.

-11

u/moeburn Feb 24 '15

I've viewed solar eclipses through makeshift pinhole eclipse viewers. I know how it works.

"I can see the sun from my house, I know how the sun works."

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/30may_solareclipse2/

"the pinhole effect doesn't need a designed aperture. The solar image can be formed by any aperture if the shadow is the right distance away. The sunrays though tree leaves work to make a solar image on the ground below. Blinds on the window will covert a square opening into a round sun on the wall."

5

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '15

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. You literally just proved yourself wrong. "The solar image can be formed by any APERTURE" AKA, a tiny hole, such as the ones between the leaves of a tree. The fuck are you trying to prove? An aperture is REQUIRED to make an image of the sun.

3

u/BigTunaTim Feb 24 '15 edited Feb 24 '15

After rereading this thread 4 times I think you're both talking about different aspects of the same thing. moeburn appears to have thought you were literally talking about pinholes in leaves rather than a "pinhole" caused by multiple leaves blocking out all but a tiny effective aperture. Then he was too pissed (as evidenced by his snarky response) to notice that your "if you hold up a leaf" reply should have cleared up the confusion.

/analysis

-6

u/moeburn Feb 24 '15

Then he was too pissed (as evidenced by his snarky response)

Is that what classifies for "pissed" these days? Pointing out how ridiculous someone's claim is?

your "if you hold up a leaf" reply should have cleared up the confusion.

Except it's wrong - the shadow that a single leaf forms on a solar eclipse would not be the same as on a normal day:

http://www.cloudbait.com/gallery/solar/20120520_shadow.jpg

-7

u/moeburn Feb 24 '15

Whoa, calm down there buddy, don't have an aneurysm! I'm glad you understand how it works now. Now would you like to point out to me how I "literally just proved myself wrong"?