[TotesNotReptilian]

The light bends the same way, whether through air or water, maybe the angles are a bit different, but it still bends in the same direction.

No, it always bends towards the medium with a higher index of refraction. Intikam's diagram would be roughly correct if the water and air were reversed.

[Setec Astronomy]

Hey guys... everyone is missing the point. It doesn't matter what the refractive index of space or the upper atmosphere is. For the sun to appear next to the horizon, the refraction would have to take place very near the surface of the earth. In fact, it would have to take place practically at ground level.

As the viewing angle becomes more acute the apparent position becomes more distorted due to passing through a the greater volume of the moist layer. This effect is observed even in the color of the sky at noon, which tends toward white (instead of sapphire blue) near the horizon. Of course you need to have a good view of the horizon and not be looking at the sky above a hill or something. Ocean views are the best.

[Unsure101]

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.

As you clearly have zero comprehension of the physics of this situation, let me explain.
For the light rays to bend as shown in the drawing above, the atmosphere of the EARTH would have to be considerably higher than that of where the sun is.
So, even though we actually do have multiple reliable space programs to inform us of the composition of space, that is largely irrelevant as there is no possible way for the sun to appear to sink below the horizon using a realistic FE model.
After review, I can revise that last statement to "there is no realistic FE model"

[Undecided]

No, it always bends towards the medium with a higher index of refraction. Intikam's diagram would be roughly correct if the water and air were reversed.

Fair enough, I'm still correct then. The light bends from air towards water in the first image, then from space towards air in my image.

Thus in my minds eye, it bends the same way. ( very simple language I know, but I'm a simple person )

[Woody]

No, it always bends towards the medium with a higher index of refraction. Intikam's diagram would be roughly correct if the water and air were reversed.

Fair enough, I'm still correct then. The light bends from air towards water in the first image, then from space towards air in my image.

Thus in my minds eye, it bends the same way. ( very simple language I know, but I'm a simple person )

Are you saying space is denser then the atmosphere?

If you think of the water as the atmosphere and space as the air above the water then the Sun should appear higher.  This is assuming that atmospheric pressure drops with altitude.

If the diagram is right then the atmosphere/space is denser the higher the altitude.

[Undecided]

No the opposite.

It bends towards the atmosphere not away from it.

[Undecided]

Oh and yes, the sun does appear higher than it actually is. That's why it is said that the sun has gone below the horizon before we see it go below.

The refraction makes the sun appear higher and therefore just above where it actually is.

[Undecided]

And another thing to bear in mind is that if we're looking at the sun on the horizon, we're not seeing it through the 25 miles or so of atmosphere straight above our heads, we're looking horizontally through the atmosphere and the distance to space is much greater. I've heard it said that it's more like 200 miles of atmosphere, most of which is the denser part atmosphere nearer the ground.

[İntikam]

Did anyone notice the light in the diagram bends in an different direction then the light in the picture?

Intikam in the picture you provided it shows the sun would appear higher then it actually is.  In the diagram you show it would appear lower.

Seeing how one is a picture and the other a drawing I think we can conclude the picture is the more compelling evidence.

I gave as an example of refraction. We are not in the water.  

Think but this time about this example again.

No, it always bends towards the medium with a higher index of refraction. Intikam's diagram would be roughly correct if the water and air were reversed.

Surely. I don't want somebody think about me " changing the truths according to his way". This is true shape showing about refraction. But here is not a water and the atmospher isin't only an gas. There is more areas on the atmospher acting light and refracting it to a lot of possible directions. The shape is true on the atmospher but the opposite is true in the atmospher true too.

Some areas has more intense, and some areas have less intense, after that again a more intense area and less intense area. Somewhere on the atmospher is cold and later the light enters a hot area and later again cold area. So there is rising and falling humidity areas more than one. we don't know if the light coming closer or is moving away. as i have guessed it has %50 chance the light is moving away.

this is like if the system it is, it describes.

Notice: I edited first post by adding the descriptive figure.

[thatsnice]

Surely. I don't want somebody think about me " changing the truths according to his way". This is true shape showing about refraction. But here is not a water and the atmospher isin't only an gas. There is more areas on the atmospher acting light and refracting it to a lot of possible directions. The shape is true on the atmospher but the opposite is true in the atmospher true too.

Some areas has more intense, and some areas have less intense, after that again a more intense area and less intense area. Somewhere on the atmospher is cold and later the light enters a hot area and later again cold area. So there is rising and falling humidity areas more than one. we don't know if the light coming closer or is moving away. as i have guessed it has %50 chance the light is moving away.

this is like if the system it is, it describes.

Notice: I edited first post by adding the descriptive figure.

Good on you for thinking of possible differences throughout the atmosphere! However, for light to refract away from the normal in the atmosphere (what you're arguing), the value of the refractive index ("n") must be lower than that of a vacuum, or less than one. n is determined by c/v_p through a substance. Only high energy X-Rays can have a phase velocity higher than that of light. Visible light, however, cannot. This confines its n to be higher in any medium than 1. In summation, when passing to a higher medium not of significant electromagnetic tendency, visible light will bend towards the normal, making it's light source appear slightly higher, as defined by the equation n₁*sin(θ₁) = n₂*sin(θ₂).
(Basically that equation means, refraction is based on average atomic density, which in a vacuum is 1 atom per cm³, and in air is 5 * 10¹⁹ atoms per cm³)

[İntikam]

You think where is the sun stay on?

[Unsure101]

You think where is the sun stay on?

Um, what is this picture supposed to show?

[model 29]

You think where is the sun stay on?

I am not sure what you are asking.  It looks like what I would expect with a sun 93million miles away shining through some holes in the clouds.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

You think where is the sun stay on?

I am not sure what you are asking.  It looks like what I would expect with a sun 93million miles away shining through some holes in the clouds.

Do you often look at things that are exactly 93 million miles away to get a good reference as to what that should look like?

[İntikam]

You think where is the sun stay on?

Um, what is this picture supposed to show?

From millions of 93 miles far away how is a sunligh effect just a little space in the clouds. And the other sides of the clouds still on darkness. Look the sky where near at the camera it is opened too. There is no difference for a mile 93 millions miles away a sun where far themselves a few kilometres.

Think a space that only 2-3 kilometres far away and the sun effecting there thru clouds. But same sun can't effect the area upside me and haven't any clouds. Just think why? Because it is not miles of 93 millions far away.

[Unsure101]

You think where is the sun stay on?

Um, what is this picture supposed to show?

From millions of 93 miles far away how is a sunligh effect just a little space in the clouds. And the other sides of the clouds still on darkness. Look the sky where near at the camera it is opened too. There is no difference for a mile 93 millions miles away a sun where far themselves a few kilometres.

Think a space that only 2-3 kilometres far away and the sun effecting there thru clouds. But same sun can't effect the area upside me and haven't any clouds. Just think why? Because it is not miles of 93 millions far away.

I suggest you look at the thread on here regarding the sun's rays and clouds.
That picture is a perfect example.

[model 29]

You think where is the sun stay on?

I am not sure what you are asking.  It looks like what I would expect with a sun 93million miles away shining through some holes in the clouds.

Do you often look at things that are exactly 93 million miles away to get a good reference as to what that should look like?

All one needs is an understanding of perspective.

[rabinoz]

You think where is the sun stay on?

I am not sure what you are asking.  It looks like what I would expect with a sun 93million miles away shining through some holes in the clouds.

Do you often look at things that are exactly 93 million miles away to get a good reference as to what that should look like?

What you, Mr SmartyPants, giving us YOUR ideas, instead of simply making wisecracks about other's comments?

Maybe I can get away with saying "It looks like what I would expect with a sun a long distance away shining through some holes in the clouds."

Now just what do YOU think it looks like?

[İntikam]

You don't understand what means that picture it is not my problem.



You are continously saying "perspective". What a perspective if the sun is 93 millions away , is the angle of the sunlight 45 degrees like this or it must be 90 degrees. There is no another alternative that explaining with your magic word "perspective". What a magic explains everything. 

[Jura-Glenlivet]

So what happened here then Inti?

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/anti1.htm

Rays in the east opposite the setting sun the foreground and clouds are still sunlit. Leigh Hilbert (site) caught these anti-crepuscular rays on 3rd March 2004 in Washington State.