Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2017, 08:02:55 PM »

Step up, junker -  show me what you got.

What?

You want to defend the flat earth, defend it.
Show me your theory.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2017, 08:39:22 PM »

You want to defend the flat earth, defend it.
Show me your theory.

Sure, where do you want to start?

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2017, 08:55:42 PM »
If you are going to discuss the entire flat earth theory, maybe you should start a new thread, so the discussion is not buried in this thread. I look forward to reading the debate/discussion :)

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2017, 08:58:31 PM »
If you are going to discuss the entire flat earth theory, maybe you should start a new thread, so the discussion is not buried in this thread. I look forward to reading the debate/discussion :)

I agree.

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2017, 10:05:46 PM »
If you are going to discuss the entire flat earth theory, maybe you should start a new thread, so the discussion is not buried in this thread. I look forward to reading the debate/discussion :)

I agree.

Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2017, 02:14:17 PM »
Note that in the first diagram with the smaller rectangle that represents the flat earth model, there is no way for the sun's rays to get under the clouds as even when the sun was far to the west, it would still be above the clouds, as even in the flat earth model, the sun is much further away than the clouds.

Have you considered that the position here is that the Sun appears to set into the horizon because of an optical illusion due to perspective? Have you accounted for that in your diagrams? Because even on a round earth, looking straight into the distance, the ground raises to meet the sky- which we know it doesn't really do.
That same perspective effect would apply to clouds as well. It's only a perspective effect, the sun doesn't actually touch the horizon as you obviously know, which means it would never be at an altitude above flat earth that would allow it to illuminate the clouds from below.

Last time I did a thread asking this question (Brocken spectre), the only reply that resembled an answer was trying to explain the illumination of the clouds from beneath with sunlight being reflected by the earth's surface. Until sandokhan came along that is.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 02:15:54 PM by andruszkow »
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2017, 09:09:31 PM »
Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.
The Sun's rays are reflecting off of the Earth.

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2017, 10:40:32 PM »
Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.
The Sun's rays are reflecting off of the Earth.
The kind of shadow being created by Mount Rainier is an "umbra" shadow. It can only happen with a point source of the light (i.e. the sun) and could not form from reflected light.

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2017, 05:04:22 PM »
Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.
The Sun's rays are reflecting off of the Earth.
The kind of shadow being created by Mount Rainier is an "umbra" shadow. It can only happen with a point source of the light (i.e. the sun) and could not form from reflected light.
Your source?

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2017, 06:03:14 PM »
I misspoke as the Sun is not purely a point source. However on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow it explains that:

"A point source of light casts only a simple shadow, called an "umbra". For a non-point or "extended" source of light, the shadow is divided into the umbra, penumbra and antumbra. The wider the light source, the more blurred the shadow becomes. If two penumbras overlap, the shadows appear to attract and merge. This is known as the Shadow Blister Effect.

The outlines of the shadow zones can be found by tracing the rays of light emitted by the outermost regions of the extended light source. The umbra region does not receive any direct light from any part of the light source, and is the darkest. A viewer located in the umbra region cannot directly see any part of the light source.

By contrast, the penumbra is illuminated by some parts of the light source, giving it an intermediate level of light intensity. A viewer located in the penumbra region will see the light source, but it is partially blocked by the object casting the shadow.

If there is more than one light source, there will be several shadows, with the overlapping parts darker, and various combinations of brightnesses or even colors. The more diffuse the lighting is, the softer and more indistinct the shadow outlines become, until they disappear. The lighting of an overcast sky produces few visible shadows."

The shadow in the photos of Mount Rainier do not show the properties of a shadow created by reflected light which would be much more diffuse than the light from the sun. Instead they show the properties of a shadow cast by a fairly concentrated light source such as the sun.

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2017, 06:29:38 PM »
Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.
The Sun's rays are reflecting off of the Earth.
The kind of shadow being created by Mount Rainier is an "umbra" shadow. It can only happen with a point source of the light (i.e. the sun) and could not form from reflected light.
Your source?

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Umbra+shadow

Light reflected off any partially reflective surface (One that is not a perfect mirror), especially a diffuse one like clouds, is scattered and dimmed and usually takes on the colour of the object reflecting it, if it has any. The shadows cast by a diffusely reflected light source are nebulous and indistinct compared to the sharp edges of an "umbra" shadow coming from a direct light source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/Lesson-1/Specular-vs-Diffuse-Reflection
https://www.cheapjoes.com/artist-resources/artist-tips-and-lessons/artist-tip-1
(Treated from an artistry perspective, but essentially verifiable by any amount of experimentation, as seen below.)

You can perform an experiment to verify this yourself by taking a flashlight and shining it on a wall.
Any object you hold up where the reflected rays of the flashlight can shine on it will be lit far less and will have a much less defined shadow line both on the object itself, and in the shadow it casts on a far wall than if it were being shone on directly. In fact, there is no way you can angle the flashlight to produce the same shadow either on the object or behind it that would occur if the object were directly in line with the beam.

Now let's consider what has to happen for this reflection to occur.
In our little mockup here, the flashlight is the sun, the wall is the cloud and the object is the mountain.
For light to be reflecting off the clouds from the sun to hit the mountain, both the sun and the mountain would have to be on the same "side" as the clouds.
According to the sacred text of the Flat Earth Society, Earth: Not a Globe by S. Rowbotham, (pg 99 and fig 66 on pg 129) the sun is always above the surface of the earth and the upper layers of the atmosphere, well above where the clouds are.

There is no configuration of the Flat Earth, it's sun and it atmosphere that can account for the angle, intensity and colour of the light shown in the video, or any other video of shadows cast at sunrise unless said sun at some point is at an angle that throws light upwards at the clouds. To do that, it must be below a projected line thay the clouds are above. No amount of messing with perspective and using arbitrary distances can get around this - if there is a case where this is possible, then precise measurements of distance and relative angle to the observer need to be proposed.

There is only one way around this: contravene this argument with numbers.
Tell us the exact height of the sun, the size of its orbital circle and the angle it makes between its position, its orbital centre and the height of the cloud cover and then we might have something to go on.

Otherwise, reflection is not a plausible explanation. At all.

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2017, 11:10:36 PM »
It is the direct light of the Sun.
What Nirmala said.
Both of you now deny concentrated reflection of the Sun's rays off of water, snow, and ice, sometimes so intense as to require extremely dark glasses to avoid eye damage or blindness?

Interesting...

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2017, 11:46:49 PM »
It is the direct light of the Sun.
What Nirmala said.
Both of you now deny concentrated reflection of the Sun's rays off of water, snow, and ice, sometimes so intense as to require extremely dark glasses to avoid eye damage or blindness?
Interesting...
The question is not how much light is reflected by water or snow, but whether that light would form a point of light that would cast a shadow like the one in the photos. Reflected light off of a large surface would tend to be very diffuse and would not cause that kind of shadow. The light from the sun is all coming from that round area in the sky. The light from the snow would be coming from all directions, and so any shadow would be spread out and not well defined.

Also Mt. Rainier is not near the coast and so water would not be a factor, although the light reflected off of water would be even more diffuse.

This particular shot was taken in October, and I doubt there was much snow coverage that early in the season: http://twistedsifter.com/2012/06/picture-of-the-day-mt-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds/

Furthermore, the area around Mt. Rainier is quite mountainous, so it is not like there is a big flat field of snow out in front of it acting as a huge concentrating reflector.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 12:19:41 AM by Nirmala »

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #33 on: April 20, 2017, 12:06:10 AM »
I have learned some more about refraction and why that cannot bring the apparent position of the sun down lower than its actual position in either a flat earth or a round earth. The explanation is on this post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6056.msg114904#msg114904

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #34 on: April 20, 2017, 03:52:35 PM »
Is this entire thread just a bunch of entitled noobs who failed to read up on EAT?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2017, 04:21:40 PM »
It is the direct light of the Sun.
What Nirmala said.
Both of you now deny concentrated reflection of the Sun's rays off of water, snow, and ice, sometimes so intense as to require extremely dark glasses to avoid eye damage or blindness?
Interesting...
The question is not how much light is reflected by water or snow, but whether that light would form a point of light that would cast a shadow like the one in the photos. Reflected light off of a large surface would tend to be very diffuse and would not cause that kind of shadow. The light from the sun is all coming from that round area in the sky. The light from the snow would be coming from all directions, and so any shadow would be spread out and not well defined.

Also Mt. Rainier is not near the coast and so water would not be a factor, although the light reflected off of water would be even more diffuse.

This particular shot was taken in October, and I doubt there was much snow coverage that early in the season: http://twistedsifter.com/2012/06/picture-of-the-day-mt-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds/

Furthermore, the area around Mt. Rainier is quite mountainous, so it is not like there is a big flat field of snow out in front of it acting as a huge concentrating reflector.
It is only 133 miles to the Pacific Ocean to Mt. Rainier.

The entire area is filled with rivers and lakes.

October of what year?

The entire area west of Rainier is an alluvial plain.

The Sun, reflecting rays off of the water, is certainly not as intense as the direct sunlight, but I am sorry.

Nothing you have written is conclusive.

You did not even address the need for polarized glasses when on the water or the issue of snow blindness.

Naturally reflected sunlight is not as diffuse as you wish it to be.

Lots of opinion.

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2017, 04:23:21 PM »
Is this entire thread just a bunch of entitled noobs who failed to read up on EAT?
EAT?

I am hungry.

But it seems they just willy nilly write things off without any serious thought applied and what appears to be a tremendous lack of personal experience.

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2017, 04:44:36 PM »
It is the direct light of the Sun.
What Nirmala said.
Both of you now deny concentrated reflection of the Sun's rays off of water, snow, and ice, sometimes so intense as to require extremely dark glasses to avoid eye damage or blindness?
Interesting...
The question is not how much light is reflected by water or snow, but whether that light would form a point of light that would cast a shadow like the one in the photos. Reflected light off of a large surface would tend to be very diffuse and would not cause that kind of shadow. The light from the sun is all coming from that round area in the sky. The light from the snow would be coming from all directions, and so any shadow would be spread out and not well defined.

Also Mt. Rainier is not near the coast and so water would not be a factor, although the light reflected off of water would be even more diffuse.

This particular shot was taken in October, and I doubt there was much snow coverage that early in the season: http://twistedsifter.com/2012/06/picture-of-the-day-mt-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds/

Furthermore, the area around Mt. Rainier is quite mountainous, so it is not like there is a big flat field of snow out in front of it acting as a huge concentrating reflector.
It is only 133 miles to the Pacific Ocean to Mt. Rainier.

The entire area is filled with rivers and lakes.

October of what year?

The entire area west of Rainier is an alluvial plain.

The Sun, reflecting rays off of the water, is certainly not as intense as the direct sunlight, but I am sorry.

Nothing you have written is conclusive.

You did not even address the need for polarized glasses when on the water or the issue of snow blindness.

Naturally reflected sunlight is not as diffuse as you wish it to be.

Lots of opinion.

133 miles is not close at all. There are lots of mountains west of Rainier and few lakes or rivers: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mount+Rainier+National+Park/@46.9026898,-122.5803192,47095m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490cde6eec94b87:0x5cf4a1fb4f91a418!8m2!3d46.8799663!4d-121.7269094

From the link to the photo: This particular image was shot on the morning of October 26th, 2011

Diffuse reflected light will not create a shadow with an umbra because the light is reflected in all directions (unlike a mirror or highly polished surface). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection And in the case of light reflecting off of many square miles of ground, there is even more scattered light coming from even more directions. So any shadows from all of that light coming from many different directions would in effect cancel each other out. That is why photographers use diffusers over their lights: to spread out the light source and eliminate harsh shadows. The only source of light that can cast a shadow like the one in the pictures is a point source or something close to a point source like the sun.

The fact that sunlight off of snow or water can cause blindness has nothing to do with the type of shadow that light would cast, or rather not cast. Try standing under an overhanging roof (to block direct sunlight) in front of a field of white snow, and see if the light from the snow can cause a dark shadow behind you. It won't. Yes there is a lot of light being reflected from all over that field into your eyes, and you better have sunglasses on. But again, because the light is coming from all directions, there would be no dark, well defined shadows behind you.

However, you are correct that nothing I write is ever conclusive.

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2017, 04:48:34 PM »
Novarus also explains above why reflected light is not a possible explanation given the geometry of the flat earth, so I suggest you re-read his post also.

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2017, 04:55:55 PM »
133 miles is not close at all. There are lots of mountains west of Rainier and few lakes or rivers: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mount+Rainier+National+Park/@46.9026898,-122.5803192,47095m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490cde6eec94b87:0x5cf4a1fb4f91a418!8m2!3d46.8799663!4d-121.7269094

From the link to the photo: This particular image was shot on the morning of October 26th, 2011

Diffuse reflected light will not create a shadow with an umbra because the light is reflected in all directions (unlike a mirror or highly polished surface). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection And in the case of light reflecting off of many square miles of ground, there is even more scattered light coming from even more directions. So any shadows from all of that light coming from many different directions would in effect cancel each other out. That is why photographers use diffusers over their lights: to spread out the light source and eliminate harsh shadows. The only source of light that can cast a shadow like the one in the pictures is a point source or something close to a point source like the sun.

The fact that sunlight off of snow or water can cause blindness has nothing to do with the type of shadow that light would cast, or rather not cast. Try standing under an overhanging roof (to block direct sunlight) in front of a field of white snow, and see if the light from the snow can cause a dark shadow behind you. It won't. Yes there is a lot of light being reflected from all over that field into your eyes, and you better have sunglasses on. But again, because the light is coming from all directions, there would be no dark, well defined shadows behind you.

However, you are correct that nothing I write is ever conclusive.

Lots of mountains west of Rainier?!?!

Where?

I think you need to pony up pal.

You make the claim the light is diffused.

I happen to know for a fact light reflected from snow will cast a significantly dark shadow.

Same with light reflected from water.

Seen it with my own two eyes.

133 miles is obviously going to be a subjective measure, but unlike you I believe it distinctively qualifies as close.

It is not the entirety of the mountain casting a shadow, but rather that part subjected to light.

Any part of the top of the mountain would certainly cast a shadow from a light source below it.

And light from the Sun reflected off the surface of the Earth at an altitude lower than the summit of Rainier would qualify.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 05:28:32 PM by totallackey »