[Luke 22:35-38]

Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!

How do you explain that on a round floating ball fantasy earth??

Its perspective. The sun is not right behind those trees.

[mikeman7918]

Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!

How do you know that's sunlight?

Because I have seen scenes like that in person.

Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!

How do you explain that on a round floating ball fantasy earth??

It's called perspective.  Parallel lines can appear to converge or diverge if you are looking at them from the correct angle, like these train tracks which are perfectly parallel:



Are you seriously suggesting that the Sun is actually right behind those trees?  WTF?

[Charming Anarchist]

Are you seriously suggesting that the Sun is actually right behind those trees?  WTF?

Are you seriously suggesting that the train-tracks actually reach the Sun??  WTF??




Note to honest folks: 
My school taught us that the sun was sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo far away from us that the rays are practically parallel from our perspective.  Why now the flip flop???

[GiantsO]

While the post may be long, I'll keep my wording fairly simple and minimal, with the required humor, because some people just like to gloss over the information.  Keeping that in mind, I'll mostly use pictures, along with a little video, to address clouds and light, sunbeams, crepuscular rays, sources of light, shadows.  Is this an effect or an ironclad rule of thumb?  Can we reliably find the vanishing point using railroad track perspective consistently?  It's an older post, and the RE folks addressed things very succinctly, but I'll weigh in here too, being for the benefit of Mr. Kite. 

The Sun is Directly Above

The sun is directly above these clouds.  You can almost lick it like a lollipop.



The sun is directly above . . .  Wait, those are almost parallel from this angle!  I'll get back to that.



There are two suns directly above these clouds.  Strangely parallel lines from this angle.  What gives?



The two suns are above . . . wherever this is.  My two-sun theory begins to take shape.  Or is it . . . Nibiru, peekin' out like a Pikachu?!?



The sun is directly above some hills.  Tracin' the rays back to their source,  it is a very small sun indeed.  The rays are almost parallel again, darnit!  Is that the other sun in the distance?



The sun is directly above Yorkshire.



The sun is directly above the clouds behind this building.



The sun is directly above this road, shining down on one spot just like it is on the tops of clouds in a YouTube video.  I must be right directly above those trees!



The sun is directly above this water.  It’s just on the other side, close to the surface.  The water does not boil into vapor because the sun isn’t very hot.



The sun is directly above this whale.  He's getting a perspective on the vanishing point.



The sun is directly above this shark.  He's getting a perspective on the diver! 



The sun is directly above this porpoise.  They're supposed to be pretty intelligent.  Maybe they can measure the distance.  Maybe the answer is 42.  So long, and thanks for all the fish.



The sun is directly above this tortoise (with four elephants carrying the earth disc on its back).



The sun is directly above this cave, close nearby on the other side of those rocks.  Just trace the rays back.



The sun is directly above Grand Central Station, just on the other side of the middle window.  The rays don't lie.



The midnight sun is directly above this road.  Oh, it’s a streetlight.



Why are these too parallel?  Is it the angle I’m seeing them from (the angle of the photographer)?  Where’s the vanishing point?  Am I seeing them from the front or the side?  Who determines that?  On that day the sun must be very close, directly above those hills. 



The sun is directly above those clouds, and what the . . .  what’s going on with the nearly parallel rays?  If I trace them . . . do I get a Scooby snack?



The sun is directly above those crazy parallel rays!



The sun is directly confusing, what with the parallel rays from this angle ‘n all.



The sun is directly above ‘n parallel rays ‘n stuff.  Sheesh!

Crepuscular rays appear to radiate away from the sun as if it were nearby, close to the clouds, the water, the window.  They are an effect produced by the contrast of rays of light and shadows.  The shadows can be cast by clouds, trees, windows, water.   The columns of light most often appear to fan out, splayed, but can also appear parallel to one another, especially depending on the angle of the viewer.  They are visible in a variety of settings and places relative to the receptor (eye or lens).  The light scatters off reflective dust particles or water droplets.  Is this a perspective effect?  What do the pictures tell us?  What do our eyes tell us when we get up, leave our computers and all the YouTube and Google images behind and go outside into the real reality world and pay close attention?  What do we see from the highway in our car, or from hiking up in the hills?  What do we under different cloud conditions and at different times of day?

What’s sorely lacking here is uniformity and continuity, especially for a very near sun that travels in little finite orbits pretty close to earth's flat surface, which allows for much less room for variation (although I'm sure FE "scientists" will be frying synapses working on some crazy explanations to help push the narrative to new lows).  I distinctly notice remarkably different angles fanning out and parallel lines of sunbeams/rays that could suggest a sun of radically varying sizes and heights if I was inclined to look at this literally.  Heck, even two suns (saw one photo that suggested three!).  Yes, things are never so simple as FE science makes it out to be.  And trusting only what our eyes tell us?  That's why we need science and reliable tests.  Our eyes deceive us on an almost daily basis.  Just "looking out our window" doesn't quite suffice. 

I found this shamefully erroneous video of a guy what just can't science none proving you just can’t fix stupid.

More accurate:

Light travelling through a substance of different density (water pictured; layers of atmosphere).  Interesting to note:
• beams are closer together at source, fan out wider the further they travel.
• the light bends less, with shorter length, when directly vertical (not close; vertical) to the substance it must to travel through.
• The light bends very sharply, with increased length, when meeting substance at a greater angle.
• Beams also reflect back into the space (water space in this instance); about 30% of sunlight is reflected back into outer space.
• Snell’s law of refraction might be a bit of a heady concept for some, but . . .

A young girl who understands more than most practitioners of cult FE sci-fi.

Yes, light can bend.  It can follow the curve of a round, spherical, orb with all its atmosphere ‘n stuff (full of varying levels of humidity, densest of which is closest to the surface, coincidently), along with that gnarly G-word that bends light.

It’s beautiful to see people (including a little girl) using science in their videos versus the guy using the cardboard plate from his pizza box.

[rabinoz]

Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.

Ok, try this. First I'll repeat a bit of the OP.

Have you ever seen rays of light shining down through the clouds?  Something like this? If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory.  The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states.  To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.

Sure, "To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window." BUT, sometimes it is wise to engage the brain before coming out with ridiculous pronouncements. Let's look at another example. This one is taken quite for north of the Equator (and the Tropic of Cancer) in Scotland and is a frame at 5:42 in the video Crepuscular rays i.e. Optical Illusion of the Sun's Diverging / Spreading Rays Now the reason I said "ridiculous pronouncements", was NOT to ridicules Pongo belief in the Flat Earth, but from the conclusions drawb from that photo. In the example I have shown on the right I have extended the rays and they do indeed meet at a point that appears close to the earth. But just consider how close! The base of Cumulo-Nimbus clouds is usually at about 1,000 m, so I have stretched thins a bit and estimated that the apparent position of the sun might be about 2,000 m high and directly that Scottish loch. But, "Flat Earth Theory" tells us that the sun is at an altitude of roughly 5,000 km, 2,500 times higher than our estimate! Summit' wrong 'ere mate! Not only that we have the sun directly over a Scotland - probably 3,600 km north of northmost excursion of the sun. So, Flat Earth or Globe, to suggest that the convergence point of these rays shows us a sun at 5,000 km altitude is ridiculous. And saying "you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory" is completely false.

Crepuscular Rays Explanation

So, what is going on? Now the reason I haven't answered this question before was that I found the explanation of "perspective" (yes, that hoary old subject) hard to swallow too. The I watch the video I referred to above a bit more carefully, and this is how is seems to pan out.

This time I have taken the same picture "removed" the clouds, but left the sun, the rays and the indicators of where the sun was shining through the clouds. Suddenly, there seems to be no problem! The sun looks to be in quite a normal position in the sky any any light reaching those points on the loch would pass through the location we have marked. To me, and I hope to you, there seems to be no question about it. The presence of the clouds distorts our ideas of perspective. Mind you now, in my opinion at least, these photos of "Crepuscular Rays" (on their own!) do not provide evidence either way on the Flat ~ Globe debate. Thanks, Pongo, this topic has always bothered me - now I am satisfied, even if no-one else is. It is simply an optical illusion. This video Crepuscular rays i.e. Optical Illusion of the Sun's Diverging / Spreading Rays I referred to is a bit slow, but probably worth watching

Crepuscular Rays Explanation - no Clouds

[brainsandgravy]

Have you ever seen rays of light shining down through the clouds?  Something like this?





If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory.  The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states. 

To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.

It's perspective. You may have heard that parallel appear to converge in the distance. That's what you're seeing.

But clouds are actually a big problem for flat earth theory. At sunset you will often see the underside of clouds being illuminated by direct sunlight. This is impossible with a flat earth model. There's no possible explanation.

[rabinoz]

Interesting isn't it!

Now that it looks like Crepuscular Rays are not evidence of a Flat Earth Sun Pongo (nor a 93 million mile distant sun) isn't the slightest bit interested - whose brainwashed!

He makes a ridiculous statement like

If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory.  The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states. 

To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.

  Really, a sun at no more than 2 km high? 

The simply isn't interested in backing it up! What about a debate!

[Pongo]

Or, perhaps, I haven't been swayed by anyone's rebuttals.

[Ecthelion]

Or, perhaps, I haven't been swayed by anyone's rebuttals.

Which would indicate a rather alarming lack of flexibility in your beliefs, since you apparently also cannot actually adress any of their points.

[Pongo]

Or, perhaps, I haven't been swayed by anyone's rebuttals.

Which would indicate a rather alarming lack of flexibility in your beliefs, since you apparently also cannot actually adress any of their points.

How does that in anyway show an inability to address their points? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Ecthelion]

How does that in anyway show an inability to address their points? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Since we are talking about an empirical fact (whether or not you can adress their points), absence of evidence is (weak) evidence of absence. You not adressing the points is more likely to happen in a world where you cannot adress their points than in a world where you can. Unless you are not actually interested in honest discussion, that is.

[Pongo]

How does that in anyway show an inability to address their points? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Since we are talking about an empirical fact (whether or not you can adress their points), absence of evidence is (weak) evidence of absence. You not adressing the points is more likely to happen in a world where you cannot adress their points than in a world where you can. Unless you are not actually interested in honest discussion, that is.

Honestly, I'm simply not interested in discussion. I posted this last June. I haven't seen anything that disproves the post. All the pictures posted of clouds confirm my position (thanks!) and all the pictures of trees just look like they stuck a floodlight behind the tree before snapping the photograph.

So, if my apathy to argue gives your imagination the perception of a perch on which to declare victory, then go ahead. As an aside, it's nice to know that you've turned the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" axiom on it's head, though. You should probably try and get that published in a journal or something so you get credit for it.

[atmoSPHERE]

Have you ever seen rays of light shining down through the clouds?  Something like this?





If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory.  The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states. 

To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.

Whether the Earth is flat or round, or whether the sun is 300 miles or 93 million miles away cannot be determined from this image. Well, it can, but not with the point you're trying to make.

[Ecthelion]

Honestly, I'm simply not interested in discussion.

Which is why you are here, on a discussion forum, in a subforum called Flart Earth Debate.

I posted this last June. I haven't seen anything that disproves the post. All the pictures posted of clouds confirm my position (thanks!) and all the pictures of trees just look like they stuck a floodlight behind the tree before snapping the photograph.

Ha, yeah, of course they did. Let's assume the observation is fake rather than update our beliefs. That'll get us closer to the truth. Anyways, it's hard to believe you seriously didn't see how your post is disproven, so I am simply not going to.

So, if my apathy to argue gives your imagination the perception of perch on which to declare victory, then go ahead.

I always declare victory when the opposition leaves on an internet forum. It's a tried and tested method, and keeps one sane. There is no reason to assume you took the time to post a reply without also taking the time to post your arguments, if you had any.

As an aside, it's nice to know that you've turned the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" axiom on it's head, though. You should probably try and get that published in a journal or something so you get credit for it.

No need. People with the necessary background in logic already know that all of these fancy statements like "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" or "correlation does not imply causation" are only true in formal logic, and only name specific cases of non-sequitur. If one is trying to gain new information, like trying to establish an empirical fact, one needs induction, and induction always violates formal logic. Because, if you think about it, how would you prove absence if not by the absence of evidence for any competing theory?

[rabinoz]

Or, perhaps, I haven't been swayed by anyone's rebuttals.

All I did was I believe prove that "in my opinion at least, these photos of "Crepuscular Rays" (on their own!) do not provide evidence either way on the Flat ~ Globe debate.

The only thing I tried to rebut was the ridiculous notion that the sun could be at under 2,000 m (2 km).

So if you haven't been swayed by that  ...................... 

[model 29]

and all the pictures of trees just look like they stuck a floodlight behind the tree before snapping the photograph.

My picture was of sunlight.  Are you saying you've never been outside among some trees in conditions that allow for 'rays' of sunlight to filter through?  You should get out more.

If the cloud pictures are legit, based off the angles of the rays, at what elevation do you believe the sun to be?

[Jura-Glenlivet]

We did this on page 2 of this debate and made Orbi' go away.

Further to my interest both in this site and weather phenomena/nature etc, I came across this magnificent site (Atmospheric optics), it has in depth science married to some truly stunning photography.
Relating to this discussion specifically, the following is a good example of how the eye is tricked by perspective (make sure to scroll down)

 http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz946.htm  anti-crepuscular laser.

And specifically to orbi’s attempt to gloss over the fact that anti-crepuscular rays negate the point he makes for crepuscular ones, the following is a full horizon montage showing both.

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz189.htm  full spread crepuscular

[Roundabout]

How does that in anyway show an inability to address their points? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Since we are talking about an empirical fact (whether or not you can adress their points), absence of evidence is (weak) evidence of absence. You not adressing the points is more likely to happen in a world where you cannot adress their points than in a world where you can. Unless you are not actually interested in honest discussion, that is.

Honestly, I'm simply not interested in discussion. I posted this last June. I haven't seen anything that disproves the post. All the pictures posted of clouds confirm my position (thanks!) and all the pictures of trees just look like they stuck a floodlight behind the tree before snapping the photograph.

Since you apparently don't understand the arguments against your OP (and against any claims that crepuscular rays show that the sun is closer than 93 million miles), I'll break things down for you as plainly as I can.

Linear perspective has been well understood since the Renaissance, when it was used by artists to give their drawings and paintings a more realistic 3-D look. According to the theorems of this branch of (Euclidean) geometry, parallel lines will always look like they converge toward (or diverge from) the farthest point you can see when you look in the direction parallel to the lines. This point is called the "vanishing point." They will also appear to converge at the point directly opposite the VP. For example, vertical parallel lines will always appear to converge toward the zenith and the nadir. For another example, lines parallel to the line between your eye and the center of the sun will always appear to converge toward the sun's center.

Consequently, if rays of sunlight appear to converge toward the sun, they could actually be parallel, or extremely close to parallel -- lines parallel to the line connecting your eye and the sun would look exactly like crepuscular rays. Of course, this consideration alone doesn't prove that they're parallel or close to it.

If the sun were sufficiently close to the Earth, triangulation could determine the exact location of the sun. For example, if the two triangulators were stationed 6 miles apart while the sun is 3000 miles away, and the sun is roughly equidistant from both, we might get a fairly accurate estimate of the sun's location, assuming it's relatively close. How about it, FE-ers? Has this been done?

And here's another way to test FE vs. RE:

Take simultaneous readings of the sun's position in the sky (azimuth and altitude) at different points. According to RE theory, the differences in the angular distances between the sun's positions in the sky will be directly proportional to the distances between the points, a linear function. For example, if the distance from London to Los Angeles is about 79 degrees (it is, taking a great circle route), then the sun's positions in the sky will be 79 degrees apart in the two cities. According to FE theory, however, the angle of the sun above the horizon will be arctan(h/d), where h is the height of the sun above the Earth and d is the distance from the point of measurement to the spot where the sun is directly overhead, a nonlinear curvy function. So the FE and RE predictions can't both be right.

Of course, a sailor could also, assuming a round Earth, determine his position by the stars, assuming he had an accurate chronometer and a table giving the positions of stars at known locations at specific times. Wait'll I tell the Navy about this! 

[rabinoz]

You are forgetting  bendy light  !!!

Of course, a sailor could also, assuming a round Earth, determine his position by the stars, assuming he had an accurate chronometer and a table giving the positions of stars at known locations at specific times. Wait'll I tell the Navy about this! 

Haven't I heard somewhere that there was a big prize for a

Marine chronometer
A marine chronometer is a timepiece that is precise and accurate enough to be used as a portable time standard; it can therefore be used to determine longitude by means of celestial navigation. When first developed in the 18th century, it was a major technical achievement, as accurate knowledge of the time over a long sea voyage is necessary for navigation, lacking electronic or communications aids. The first true chronometer was the life work of one man, John Harrison, spanning 31 years of persistent experimentation and testing that revolutionized naval (and later aerial) navigation and enabling the Age of Discovery and Colonialism to accelerate.

from: Marine chronometer

Someone should have told Captain Cook - maybe he knew and used its assistance for some very accurate plotting of Australia's East Coast.

[BlueMoon]

Haven't I heard somewhere that there was a big prize for a

Marine chronometer
A marine chronometer is a timepiece that is precise and accurate enough to be used as a portable time standard; it can therefore be used to determine longitude by means of celestial navigation. When first developed in the 18th century, it was a major technical achievement, as accurate knowledge of the time over a long sea voyage is necessary for navigation, lacking electronic or communications aids. The first true chronometer was the life work of one man, John Harrison, spanning 31 years of persistent experimentation and testing that revolutionized naval (and later aerial) navigation and enabling the Age of Discovery and Colonialism to accelerate.

from: Marine chronometer

Oh!  Ohhhh!  I read a book about that once!  The Longitude Prize.  Great read.  Can't remember that much of it, but it's still the way I remember the difference between latitude and longitude.