New here
« on: August 13, 2017, 11:00:29 AM »
So I see that there's quite a bit going on here. I was rather surprised to see that the idea of a flat Earth has so many proponents. I've not really stumbled across much evidence (aside from claims that we can't PROVE the Earth ISN'T flat) nor much discourse on the issue. I'm always up for healthy debate, but I have a few questions first so that I may understand the position that Flat Earthers hold. (I don't want to post, say Nasa photos and be labelled a sheep due to an already established position on such things.)

1. There are many reports/claims of people flying and sailing around the world. I've yet to hear of anyone making it to the edge of the world, or documenting such a finding. I suspect there will be claims like " 'They' covered it up," or "Illuminati" but I'd like a bit more than the assumption that the Earth is flat because everything is a lie, so the popular notion that the Earth is spherical must be a lie. You understand.

2. Much of our modern society hinges on the world being spherical (flight paths, ocean liners, etc.) As well as there being several scientific agencies that are staffed by some of the most intelligent minds the world has to offer. As well as numerous privately funded organizations who study the stars, multiple observatories. Does the Flat Earth reject all modern scientific research/discovery or just the evidence proposed by said agencies (NASA for example again.) Or is this another ploy by "they" and the funding for a mass cover up.

4. Several popular high-minded individuals have based their lives and their work on a geocentric model of the Earth. (Neil Degrasse Tyson/ Stephen Hawking) Does the flat Earth society have similar "celebrities" or equally accredited individuals in their corner? Or is this a case of rejected science, or covered up truth?

4. A Flat Earth would radically skew several scientific theories about the laws of physics. Everything from how light travels, to storm systems, to the electromagnetic fields and Gravity. Does the Flat Earth society propose an alternate make up/substitutions for these?

5. Is the concept of a Flat Earth religious based? Does it factor into this at all? Is this all based off of research and observation? If so is it unbiased or seeking to explain/confirm evidence found within religious writings.

I do thank you for taking the time here. I'm a simple man of average intelligence. I've never traveled very far. I've never seen the edge of the world nor have I sailed full circle around the globe. I personally subscribe to a round Earth. Its what I've been taught, the evidence for which makes sense enough and I've found no evidence in my life to refute them. So, no hate. I'm just curious and like to argue at times. Sway me :)

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2017, 02:38:57 PM »
Hi Dockles,

I think you should probably read the Wiki pages that the Flat Earthers have posted on this site.

It answers many of your questions about what they believe.

1. There are many reports/claims of people flying and sailing around the world. I've yet to hear of anyone making it to the edge of the world, or documenting such a finding. I suspect there will be claims like " 'They' covered it up," or "Illuminati" but I'd like a bit more than the assumption that the Earth is flat because everything is a lie, so the popular notion that the Earth is spherical must be a lie. You understand.

The FE answer for this is that these people are following a compass or using celestial navigation - and if the FE ideas are correct, this would result in them sailing in a large circle.  The claim is that compasses point toward the North pole (which is at the center of their map).   So if (for example) you sailed due West - you'd sail in a circle around the North pole.  Also, according to this version of Flat-Earthism - there is no 'edge' to fall off of.

Well...yeah...that might work...but the FE ideas for where the stars are and how they move is completely incompatible with celestial navigation - so I think their theory collapses under careful examination.

Quote
2. Much of our modern society hinges on the world being spherical (flight paths, ocean liners, etc.) As well as there being several scientific agencies that are staffed by some of the most intelligent minds the world has to offer. As well as numerous privately funded organizations who study the stars, multiple observatories. Does the Flat Earth reject all modern scientific research/discovery or just the evidence proposed by said agencies (NASA for example again.) Or is this another ploy by "they" and the funding for a mass cover up.

Yes - but the FE'ers claim that NASA and other space agencies are conspiring to hide the fact that the Earth is Flat (no clearly articulated reasons as to why they'd do such a seemingly bizarre thing).   So much of the "obvious" evidence (photos of the Earth taken from the moon, for example) are simply discounted as "Fake".

Quote
3. Several popular high-minded individuals have based their lives and their work on a geocentric model of the Earth. (Neil Degrasse Tyson/ Stephen Hawking) Does the flat Earth society have similar "celebrities" or equally accredited individuals in their corner? Or is this a case of rejected science, or covered up truth?

Some people in the various FE societies (there are several) seem to think they have similar degrees of authority and gravitas...but they truly don't.  If you corner a committed FE'er and use the right pointed questions - their arguments collapse like wet tissue paper.

Quote
4. A Flat Earth would radically skew several scientific theories about the laws of physics. Everything from how light travels, to storm systems, to the electromagnetic fields and Gravity. Does the Flat Earth society propose an alternate make up/substitutions for these?

Not really - there are some half-assed explanations for "gravity" (the Earth continuously accelerates upwards at 9.8 meters per second-squared) - but most of modern science is "cherry-picked".  Things that work with FE theory are used to promote the theory - things that don't fit are either ignored or dumped into the "conspiracy theory" bucket.

Quote
5. Is the concept of a Flat Earth religious based? Does it factor into this at all? Is this all based off of research and observation? If so is it unbiased or seeking to explain/confirm evidence found within religious writings.

The people who started and who run this forum state very clearly that their beliefs are NOT religious based.

However, that is not true in general.  Many people (a few of whom show up here) are fundamentalist christians who have read a handful of sentences in the Bible - taken them FAR too literally - and spun that into a Flat Earth narrative.   However, many aspects of what the Bible is claimed to say are NOT beliefs of the people here (eg that the sky is a solid dome, made of water (ice?) that only God can reach through).

But much of the resurgence of Flat-Earthism has been due to the general tendency of the more extreme "religious right" to reject science as a matter of principle...for those people, Flat Earthism is a great way to reject science.

Quote
I do thank you for taking the time here. I'm a simple man of average intelligence. I've never traveled very far. I've never seen the edge of the world nor have I sailed full circle around the globe. I personally subscribe to a round Earth. Its what I've been taught, the evidence for which makes sense enough and I've found no evidence in my life to refute them. So, no hate. I'm just curious and like to argue at times. Sway me :)

People here are (generally) very civil if you are civil with them.   Conversation can get heated - but that's only to be expected.

Two things you will soon learn:

1) YOU MUST READ THE WIKI!   These people have been answering the same questions from round-earthers over and over again for years...decades even.   It's not fair to ask them to repeatedly re-state things they'd have to go over with every new person to the site.   So PLEASE do that.   It's nicely produced - it's easy reading and it explains a lot about their beliefs.

2) You'll be amazed at how much what you know is not accepted.   For example, one of the principle people here says that he has no idea what the map of the world looks like...and that the one on the Wiki here is not correct.   This allows them to dodge many "obvious" attacks on their theory.   Their own lack of knowledge about their own ideas is a powerful tool for them to deny "proofs" that you have.

That said - I'm committed to producing unassailable proofs that the Earth isn't flat...there is one good one in the thread "Using airline flight data." - it's not simple, but the Flat Earth theory is fairly well armored against the simplest kinds of disproof.


Re: New here
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2017, 03:04:34 PM »
Yeah.... I was hoping there would be well researched counters to those most obvious/easy to ask questions. What it appears to boil down to is confirmation bias/conspiracy theories/and rejection of widely accepted models in light of speculative theories that sound nice, briefly on their own,  and are equally unverifiable from an individual perspective. (Have YOU ever been to Space? Then how do you know that Gravity is formed by mass and not by the Earth rising continuously? Because from where you're sitting how would you be able to tell the difference?)

But Tbh that's pretty much what I expected when I realized people take the idea of the Earth being flat seriously. Hence the very obvious questions, but if there's more to it in the wiki I'll take a look, but it doesn't really look like there's much to argue about unless I'm missing something?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2017, 03:34:47 PM »
Yeah.... I was hoping there would be well researched counters to those most obvious/easy to ask questions. What it appears to boil down to is confirmation bias/conspiracy theories/and rejection of widely accepted models in light of speculative theories that sound nice, briefly on their own,  and are equally unverifiable from an individual perspective. (Have YOU ever been to Space? Then how do you know that Gravity is formed by mass and not by the Earth rising continuously? Because from where you're sitting how would you be able to tell the difference?)

But Tbh that's pretty much what I expected when I realized people take the idea of the Earth being flat seriously. Hence the very obvious questions, but if there's more to it in the wiki I'll take a look, but it doesn't really look like there's much to argue about unless I'm missing something?

I find it to be quite an interesting intellectual exercise to disprove FE theory using their own (slightly odd) rules for debate and by showing inconsistences in what they claim.   They've clearly put quite a bit of effort into doing this - so it's not exactly easy.

The biggest problem (I think) is that FE'ers tend not to be well-travelled, and there is a serious northern-hemisphere bias to their thinking.   I very much doubt there are many people from Australia, South-Africa or South-America who believe in the Flat Earth because the errors due to their presumptions only show up over large distances  (Inevitably) and the biggest problems happen in the southern hemisphere where the errors get exponentially worse.


Re: New here
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2017, 04:33:06 PM »
Yeah.... I was hoping there would be well researched counters to those most obvious/easy to ask questions. What it appears to boil down to is confirmation bias/conspiracy theories/and rejection of widely accepted models in light of speculative theories that sound nice, briefly on their own,  and are equally unverifiable from an individual perspective. (Have YOU ever been to Space? Then how do you know that Gravity is formed by mass and not by the Earth rising continuously? Because from where you're sitting how would you be able to tell the difference?)

But Tbh that's pretty much what I expected when I realized people take the idea of the Earth being flat seriously. Hence the very obvious questions, but if there's more to it in the wiki I'll take a look, but it doesn't really look like there's much to argue about unless I'm missing something?

I find it to be quite an interesting intellectual exercise to disprove FE theory using their own (slightly odd) rules for debate and by showing inconsistences in what they claim.   They've clearly put quite a bit of effort into doing this - so it's not exactly easy.

The biggest problem (I think) is that FE'ers tend not to be well-travelled, and there is a serious northern-hemisphere bias to their thinking.   I very much doubt there are many people from Australia, South-Africa or South-America who believe in the Flat Earth because the errors due to their presumptions only show up over large distances  (Inevitably) and the biggest problems happen in the southern hemisphere where the errors get exponentially worse.

I definitely do agree that the core debate would make an excellent subject for a debate exercise, like a college project. In a debate one should be able to argue either side equally effectively, assuming each side pulls from the same established data. The art would be in forming the argument.

But in the end, if one side uses accepted facts/research and verified data while the other side discounts the sources of the data and speculates unquantifiable reasonings that arrive at the same conclusion the research does in an attempt to discount the research (Well they COULD have been just sailing in circles IF magnetic North were the center of the map.) I'm having trouble finding the words, but I'm sure my point is clear: The argument becomes trite, so let me try again.

Meaning this: The entire argument for a Flat Earth, while certainly not a joke, DOES seem like a massive exercise in debate. All "evidence" provided for a Flat Earth (taken from this very site's Wiki) are alternative explanations for how the Earth and its forces could exist with the world being Flat instead of round, while discounting all evidence of a round Earth as lies. No data or evidence to support their ideal other than it "could" work in theory.


I've seen the diagrams, read the comparison s for the magnetic field, but... I've not seen anything here that actually suggests this theory to be superior than the RET, or even argue against the RET... Or am I missing something?


Re: New here
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2017, 05:05:31 PM »
Now before anyone says I haven't clearly read the evidence... I'm speaking about things like this.

""Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the""

Basically:

Q: Logical question as to why the Earth appears to orbit the Sun, with a definitive sinking beyond the Horizon line indicating a spherical orbit.

A: Idk, it doesn't though. It just looks that way #thetruthisalie

-----

Or

"" Q. Why are the celestial bodies and the sun so close to the earth's surface in the Flat Earth Model?

A. Tl;dr http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun
""

Essentially:

Q: Why is the sun/moon/stars so close to the Earth? The Sun is stated to be only 3,000 miles away

A: Well this guy did a bunch of math with a stick. Seemed legit, so we took it and just assumed the Earth was flat and now the Sun is 3,000 miles away.

-----

Alternatively, when reading about this great Ice Wall that supposedly encircles the Flat Earth, they've based (as far as this site's FAQ on the matter) their assumption on what appears to be a single excerpt from his Arctic exploration when he encountered the Ice Shelf that was named after him. That or the Ice Bergs that blocked his path to Wellington channel. I'm not sure which, as its vague, and the single cited source is a dead link. So... Speculation again.

----

There's certainly more but this is enough for now.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2017, 05:08:35 PM »
Now before anyone says I haven't clearly read the evidence... I'm speaking about things like this.

""Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the""

Basically:

Q: Logical question as to why the Earth appears to orbit the Sun, with a definitive sinking beyond the Horizon line indicating a spherical orbit.

A: Idk, it doesn't though. It just looks that way #thetruthisalie

Except that the article you mentions also provides several pieces of evidence for that effect.

Re: New here
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2017, 05:18:46 PM »
Now before anyone says I haven't clearly read the evidence... I'm speaking about things like this.

""Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the""

Basically:

Q: Logical question as to why the Earth appears to orbit the Sun, with a definitive sinking beyond the Horizon line indicating a spherical orbit.

A: Idk, it doesn't though. It just looks that way #thetruthisalie

Except that the article you mentions also provides several pieces of evidence for that effect.
It says 'Astronomers use two different observations...'

Try with 3 or more.  Tom - please arrange with your colleagues you describe as 'we'.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2017, 05:22:06 PM »
Now before anyone says I haven't clearly read the evidence... I'm speaking about things like this.

""Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the""

Basically:

Q: Logical question as to why the Earth appears to orbit the Sun, with a definitive sinking beyond the Horizon line indicating a spherical orbit.

A: Idk, it doesn't though. It just looks that way #thetruthisalie

Except that the article you mentions also provides several pieces of evidence for that effect.
It says 'Astronomers use two different observations...'

Try with 3 or more.  Tom - please arrange with your colleagues you describe as 'we'.

He is talking about the Magnification at Sunset article: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Re: New here
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2017, 05:22:23 PM »
Now before anyone says I haven't clearly read the evidence... I'm speaking about things like this.

""Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the""

Basically:

Q: Logical question as to why the Earth appears to orbit the Sun, with a definitive sinking beyond the Horizon line indicating a spherical orbit.

A: Idk, it doesn't though. It just looks that way #thetruthisalie

Except that the article you mentions also provides several pieces of evidence for that effect.
Oh goody, I get to steal from your book! The three images provided can all be explained as being potentially the result of a poorer quality camera. Most especially the traffic camera one, those are notoriously poor. They aren't made for sharp images. Since you've given us no information on the other camera's given for the pictures, obviously they are of poorer construction as well as evidenced in the third image by even the close lights not showing up as distinct objects.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2017, 05:24:16 PM »
Oh goody, I get to steal from your book! The three images provided can all be explained as being potentially the result of a poorer quality camera. Most especially the traffic camera one, those are notoriously poor. They aren't made for sharp images. Since you've given us no information on the other camera's given for the pictures, obviously they are of poorer construction as well as evidenced in the third image by even the close lights not showing up as distinct objects.

If the camera is magnifying light sources then the ratios should remain the same size and the distant light should remain small in comparison. Why are they the same size?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2017, 06:12:59 PM »
Now before anyone says I haven't clearly read the evidence... I'm speaking about things like this.

""Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the""

Basically:

Q: Logical question as to why the Earth appears to orbit the Sun, with a definitive sinking beyond the Horizon line indicating a spherical orbit.

A: Idk, it doesn't though. It just looks that way #thetruthisalie

Except that the article you mentions also provides several pieces of evidence for that effect.
It says 'Astronomers use two different observations...'

Try with 3 or more.  Tom - please arrange with your colleagues you describe as 'we'.

He is talking about the Magnification at Sunset article: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

So the source for this wild-assed claim is quoted there:

   "IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium."

Oh is it?   No!  It's not.  Light bends as it passed between two different mediums.  But unless the surface is curved, there is no magnification.  My glasses magnify images because they have curved surfaces - my windows don't do that because they have parallel sides.   If the earth is flat then the upper surface of the atmosphere is also flat - and there is no magnification.

(And the refractive index of air is 1.00029...as close to vacuum as you could reasonably imagine.  THERE IS NOT MEASURABLE REFRACTION THROUGH AIR.)

This is utter drivel - as you can tell if you drop a penny into a bucket of water.   It's position changes due to the bend - but it's size does not.

 "This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere."

The average refractive index does change a bit - but that doesn't produce "magnification"...this is just bullshit.

  "Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away
   to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger."

The glow from the lamp isn't "magnification" - if it was then you'd see a glowing lightbulb as being BIGGER - you'd be able to see more detail of the filament inside.  What you actually see is that the size for the bulb itself doesn't change - instead there is a glow around it (which is actually caused by light from the bulb scattering through the air).

The change in size of the sun isn't that.  If the glow around a streetlamp was the cause for the constancy of the sun at sunrise/sunset compared to at noon - then the disk of the sun would get smaller at sunset but the surrounding glow would be larger.

That's not what we see - so as usual, the idiot Bowbtham can't even open his eyes and honestly report what he sees.

 "This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour."

Well, I suppose he's right about the color.   The rest is nonsense - as anyone who cares to actually look at the world would know.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2017, 07:02:27 PM »
The pretty picture of the laser on that Wiki page also shows a complete misunderstanding of the physics involved.  Here is a photo of my laser tube - it's a 5' long, 100 Watt infrared laser - and because it's an insanely dangerous piece of kit, I'm rather partial to understanding (and avoiding) the ways in which it might kill me!



(This thing will set fire to stuff 50 feet away - and if focussed through a 24mm lens, will raise the temperature of anything within 75mm of the lens to around 8,000 degrees centigrade - which is hotter than the surface of the sun, and enough to vaporize absolutely any substance!)

The divergence of a laser beam is a consequence of it's exit aperture (which you'd know if you'd bothered to actually READ the Wikipedia article on the subject that you linked to).

The light rays do indeed diverge - depending on the quality of the laser (the "Q-factor") and the size of the aperture and beam.

Each individual ray of light does travel in a straight line - and so long as they are inside the laser resonance chamber - they are perfectly parallel.   However, when the beam exits through the aperture at the 'business end' - the edge of the beam undergoes diffraction (not "refraction").   This causes some of the light to be bent INWARDS towards the center of the beam - and at some range of positions beyond the aperture, they cross each other and then start to diverge.  The divergence angle for a well made laser is small - of the order or milliradians - but it does definitely diverge.   For an IR laser like mine, the point at which these rays cross is about 12 meters from the aperture - so the beam angle only diverges after 24 meters...and then VERY slowly.  Since I use mine in a home-made CNC tool - I really don't care what it does beyond maybe 3 meters.

This also explains why the beam itself has more energy at the edges than at the center - and if I shoot my laser at a piece of wood for a millisecond or so, I get a circular scorch mark around a perfectly unscathed piece of wood about a millimeter across in the middle.  The size of that central region changes as you get closer or further from the laser tube - but the beam width doesn't vary in the slightest until that 24 meter mark.

BUT this is all completely irrelevent:

1) The sun isn't a laser.
2) The sun doesn't have an "aperture"
3) Light STILL travels in straight lines...even in a laser beam.

So that diagram and all of the B.S around it is misleading nonsense....not as bad as the Rowbotham thing...but pretty bad.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 07:12:35 PM by 3DGeek »

Re: New here
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2017, 07:37:41 PM »
....I apologize... But why would I include data gathered from photographic evidence for FET possibility (not PLAUSIBILITY, mind you) when photographic evidence of RET is automatically discounted? That's another case of speculation.

"This would explain why this appears the way it does on a flat Earth." has been the root of every diagram and explanation I've seen for a flat Earth.

Nothing provided so far follows along the lines of "This shows that the world IS flat."

:/

Re: New here
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2017, 07:56:42 PM »
Oh goody, I get to steal from your book! The three images provided can all be explained as being potentially the result of a poorer quality camera. Most especially the traffic camera one, those are notoriously poor. They aren't made for sharp images. Since you've given us no information on the other camera's given for the pictures, obviously they are of poorer construction as well as evidenced in the third image by even the close lights not showing up as distinct objects.

If the camera is magnifying light sources then the ratios should remain the same size and the distant light should remain small in comparison. Why are they the same size?
I never said the camera was magnifying light sources. I said the quality of the camera is affecting what we're seeing. Changing or perhaps amplifying things already happening. Show me experimentally why it does what you claim, then we can talk. All you have are three images with unknown cameras (one likely a traffic cam though) that appear interesting, and don't greatly reflect what I've seen in my own night driving and walking.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2017, 02:15:53 AM »
Oh goody, I get to steal from your book! The three images provided can all be explained as being potentially the result of a poorer quality camera. Most especially the traffic camera one, those are notoriously poor. They aren't made for sharp images. Since you've given us no information on the other camera's given for the pictures, obviously they are of poorer construction as well as evidenced in the third image by even the close lights not showing up as distinct objects.

If the camera is magnifying light sources then the ratios should remain the same size and the distant light should remain small in comparison. Why are they the same size?
I never said the camera was magnifying light sources. I said the quality of the camera is affecting what we're seeing. Changing or perhaps amplifying things already happening. Show me experimentally why it does what you claim, then we can talk. All you have are three images with unknown cameras (one likely a traffic cam though) that appear interesting, and don't greatly reflect what I've seen in my own night driving and walking.

Why is this "low quality camera" selectively magnifying distant light sources to be exactly the same size as the nearer light sources? I'm pretty sure that even cameras in the 80's didn't do that. Your "low quality" explanation is nonsense.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2017, 02:22:09 AM »
The glow from the lamp isn't "magnification" - if it was then you'd see a glowing lightbulb as being BIGGER - you'd be able to see more detail of the filament inside.  What you actually see is that the size for the bulb itself doesn't change - instead there is a glow around it (which is actually caused by light from the bulb scattering through the air).

So if all of these light sources have "glow" which appear to be the same size, no matter how far away the light is from the observer? If it was mere glow, why doesn't the glow differ in size?

Quote
The change in size of the sun isn't that.  If the glow around a streetlamp was the cause for the constancy of the sun at sunrise/sunset compared to at noon - then the disk of the sun would get smaller at sunset but the surrounding glow would be larger.

Therefore, it is not glow.

Quote
Well, I suppose he's right about the color.   The rest is nonsense - as anyone who cares to actually look at the world would know.

This effect is exactly what we see when we look at the world.

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2017, 02:35:52 AM »
Why are they the same size?
Because in that traffic cam picture, the closer the cars get, the less their headlights are pointed at the camera due to the height of the camera.  Anyone who has seen oncoming cars at night knows the headlights are small in the distance, and grow larger the closer you get.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2017, 02:42:38 AM »
Why are they the same size?
Because in that traffic cam picture, the closer the cars get, the less their headlights are pointed at the camera due to the height of the camera.

Not all of the examples are headlights. This cannot be the explanation for the effect.

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2017, 06:43:32 AM »
Why are they the same size?
Because in that traffic cam picture, the closer the cars get, the less their headlights are pointed at the camera due to the height of the camera.

Not all of the examples are headlights. This cannot be the explanation for the effect.
Ok, let's look at the other two examples on the wiki page.  The first one is looking down at a city from the top of a building.  There are vehicle lights, window lights, street lights, signs, etc, all of which are viewed from a different angle than the more distant sources.  The window lights consist of more pixels than the window lights further away.  Anyway, what lights are what?  Different types of sources viewed from different angles make this picture useless for an example.

The "lamp post example" shows the closer lights being larger and growing smaller as the sources recede, but the glare makes them all look larger than the actual source.  A higher exposure was used for this shot, as we all know it didn't look like that in person.

In reality, distant lights look smaller than closer lights.