*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2017, 08:17:20 AM »
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.

If the phenomenon was due to "glare" please then explain why the distant light sources are the same size as the closer light sources. Shouldn't the "glare" on a light source that is far away be smaller and the "glare" on a closer light source be bigger? The fact that everything in the far field is the same size is confounding in that explanation.

Re: New here
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2017, 01:53:11 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.

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.
It's not selective at all. Every light source becomes the same size because of the quality of the camera. This only happens to lights that can be seen by the camera. Look at the cars not coming towards the camera on this, or the video you posted. They appear to have smaller light's than the other cars that are next to them, or closer to us.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: New here
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2017, 02:08:21 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?

Not at all.  The more out of focus a light source becomes the larger the blob becomes.   It's called the circle of confusion. Look it up.

Of course, we can't over look the obvious, that the pictures are faked.
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: New here
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2017, 02:29:53 PM »
This image explains the problem Tom is having nicely:



The bright light from streetlights on the left of the image are actually getting a little smaller with distance - but (as Tom loves to assert) they aren't shrinking as fast as perspective would suggest.

However, there is no "magnification" going on - because if there were, the signs in the distance would be just as large and legible as the ones nearby - and we ALL know that doesn't happen.

This picture shows this even better.  The bright, far distant SIGNS are not getting bigger.  They are getting blurrier - but NOT bigger.



What's happening is this:

Light from the streetlight (the yellow circle) shines outwards in all directions (the red lines) - but when the air is misty (which is always is to some degree), the light rays hit water droplets (blue dots) and are scattered off in all directions (the green arrows).   This is called "Mie Scattering": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mie_scattering - and it's a well documented and understood phenomenon.  No FET magic required.



The secondary light reflected from those droplets forms the glow that you see around the lights.   So our eyes (or a camera) are gathering light coming directly from the light source AND light scattered from water droplets closer to our eyes.

The further you are from the light, the more droplets there are between you and the light that can scatter it back towards you - so the glow AROUND the light tends to fight the effects of perspective (not 100% - but certainly to some degree).  However, the DIRECT light from the source itself stays exactly as the ordinary laws of perspective say they should.

This is why the neon signs in these photos get blurrier - but they DON'T get bigger.  You can't read a neon sign that's 20 miles away - even though it's glow may be huge.

If RET is correct, then the sun remains the same size between zenith and sunset because it's distance remains the same.

If FET was correct then the disk of the sun would be about half the size at sunset (because it's further away) - but the effects of Mie scatter would produce a glow around the sun which might well be larger than the sun at zenith.

HOWEVER that's not what we see.  The sun doesn't get fuzzier at sunset - it forms a perfect disk with a relatively sharp edge that's the same size as the disk of the sun at zenith.



So, sorry Tom - the "magnification" theory is doomed.   You can't read neon signs from 20 miles away - so your theory is WRONG.

You have no valid explanation for why the FET sun doesn't halve in size when it sets.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?