The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TotesNotReptilian on May 30, 2016, 03:11:42 AM

Title: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 30, 2016, 03:11:42 AM
Stuff appears smaller with distance. This is common knowledge.

In most flat earth models, the sun and moon are rotating above the earth. Line of sight with the sun/moon is maintained over the entire earth at all times. So why is the sun/moon not visible at all times? A common answer goes something like this: "we can't see forever, the sun becomes too far away to see."

There is a problem with this explanation though! Stuff appears smaller with distance. This is true about everything... except the sun/moon, apparently. The sun/moon stay the same size in the sky throughout the day. So, why does the sun/moon get an exception? To the wiki!

The magnification of the sun at sunset (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)
Quote
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. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. 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...

-- Rowbotham

His primary mistake is that he is confusing the size of the light source with the glare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glare_%28vision%29) surrounding the light source. There are two main causes of glare relevant to this discussion:

1. Too much light: The light from the source overwhelms the light coming from everything around it. The light appears as a bright, white, washed out blob. The amount of glare as seen by a camera can be adjusted with the aperture, shutter speed, lens, etc. Note: this type of glare DECREASES with distance.

2. Too much scattering: Light bounces off the nearby air, causing the light source to appear as an indistinct, fuzzy ball. This especially happens when there is a lot of fog or smoke. When near the light source, the scattering isn't significant, and the distinct features of the light source can be seen. When far away from the light source, the size of the light source can be mistaken for the size of the "indistinct, fuzzy ball" of glare around it.

In the case of the sun and moon, we are able to take pictures that show clear, sharp, distinct features. We don't even need a camera to make out the features of the moon. With the right camera settings, we can make out the distinct edge of the sun. With a telescope, details of the sun's surface (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/4ij9b2/mercury_in_front_of_the_sun_may_9_2016_oc_info_in/) can be made out.

So no, there is no "known magnification effect" which magically causes the sun to appear the same size at all times. The explanation given in the wiki is hilariously bad, and very easily seen to be completely false with minimum effort.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 01, 2016, 02:19:33 AM
Where have you proved that glare is not a magnification of the light source?
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 01, 2016, 02:29:18 AM
Where have you proved that glare is not a magnification of the light source?

First of all, that was a statement I made in a different thread, not this one. Try to stay on topic.

Second of all, you are completely missing the point. The point is that glare can be eliminated from the equation when photographing the sun, and ESPECIALLY the moon:

Quote
In the case of the sun and moon, we are able to take pictures that show clear, sharp, distinct features. We don't even need a camera to make out the features of the moon. With the right camera settings, we can make out the distinct edge of the sun. With a telescope, details of the sun's surface can be made out.

Remember, the moon stays the same size the entire day/night as well, just like the sun. Your "known magnification" theory doesn't even hold up well when applied to the sun, but it has absolutely no chance of applying to the moon.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 01, 2016, 09:13:11 AM
Please link us to your studies or investigation of the nature of the phenomenon of glare, showing that it is not a magnification of the light source as it appears to be, and that the magnified features of an object cannot be preserved in the process.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 01, 2016, 11:44:04 AM
Please link us to your studies or investigation of the nature of the phenomenon of glare, showing that it is not a magnification of the light source as it appears to be, and that the magnified features of an object cannot be preserved in the process.

New Theory: Everyone is floating around in a giant bowl of jelly. Magic unicorns swim around sprinkling their magic dust on us that makes us hallucinate everything that we experience as real life. I have absolutely no evidence to support this theory, but the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong! Please link us to your studies or investigation of the nature of magic unicorn dust.

See how annoying and ridiculous that sounded?

I have never in my life seen glare magically magnify an object (and the details on its surface), and make it appear the exact same size and shape no matter how far away it is. I have never heard of anyone that has seen this phenomenon. I can not find any reference to such a phenomenon on the internet. Last but not least, you have provided absolutely zero evidence for your theory. (No, the 2 highway pictures do not count as evidence for your theory. They completely contradict your theory, as was thoroughly proven by multiple people on the other thread.)
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: rabinoz on June 01, 2016, 12:11:30 PM
Please link us to your studies or investigation of the nature of the phenomenon of glare, showing that it is not a magnification of the light source as it appears to be, and that the magnified features of an object cannot be preserved in the process.
Oh, come on! Would you now suggest that glare could magnify the moon while preserving all of its details.

And, then how could the "magnification by glare" of the sun manages to keep the sun's apparent size exactly the same from sunup to sundown.

Then you will find that a solar filter (or just an arc welding filter) will remove the glare and the sun still stays the same size.

Another point is that this change in size expected for the flat earth sun or moon would occur over the whole range of elevations from horizon to overhead.
For example, as the sun (or moon) moves from overhead to an elevation of 30° above the horizon the size should fall to 50% and this does not happen.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rounder on June 01, 2016, 12:44:38 PM
Then you will find that a solar filter (or just an arc welding filter) will remove the glare and the sun still stays the same size.

SAFETY NOTE
Please make sure it really is a welding filter.
Do NOT look at the sun through cutting/torching glasses!
You can use an arc welding filter rated 14 or higher (http://www.space.com/15614-sun-observing-safety-tips-infographic.html)!
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 01, 2016, 07:11:43 PM
I have never in my life seen glare magically magnify an object (and the details on its surface), and make it appear the exact same size and shape no matter how far away it is.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vEqKm2JH97g/VesV94tn7xI/AAAAAAAAxu4/MLLUtOZMoNk/s640/highway.gif)
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 01, 2016, 07:24:59 PM
Please link us to your studies or investigation of the nature of the phenomenon of glare, showing that it is not a magnification of the light source as it appears to be, and that the magnified features of an object cannot be preserved in the process.
Oh, come on! Would you now suggest that glare could magnify the moon while preserving all of its details.

Glare is clearly magnifying the light source. Depending on the mechanism of magnification (there are a variety of types of glare), I see no reason why the details could not remain in tact.

Quote
And, then how could the "magnification by glare" of the sun manages to keep the sun's apparent size exactly the same from sunup to sundown.

See the above image.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 01, 2016, 08:49:08 PM
Please link us to your studies or investigation of the nature of the phenomenon of glare, showing that it is not a magnification of the light source as it appears to be, and that the magnified features of an object cannot be preserved in the process.
Oh, come on! Would you now suggest that glare could magnify the moon while preserving all of its details.

Glare is clearly magnifying the light source. Depending on the mechanism of magnification (there are a variety of types of glare), I see no reason why the details could not remain in tact.


And I see no reason why magic unicorn dust can't be responsible for our perception of reality. But I don't have any evidence to support that theory either.

Quote
Quote
And, then how could the "magnification by glare" of the sun manages to keep the sun's apparent size exactly the same from sunup to sundown.

See the above image.

Getting closer! The size and shape remains constant (and bonus: round), but you are still lacking the ever-so-important "preserving details" part of your theory. That image shows homogeneous circles of light, not a magnified headlight.

For clarification: This image no longer shows glare. This effect is due to the camera being out of focus. The effect can be removed by bringing the camera into focus.

Fun fact: These artifacts are commonly referred to as circles of confusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion). Their size and shape is determined by the size and shape of the camera aperture, and the focal length. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh#Bokeh_and_lens_design) The spots are round in the above image because the aperture of the camera is round.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 03, 2016, 01:38:35 AM
I have never in my life seen glare magically magnify an object (and the details on its surface), and make it appear the exact same size and shape no matter how far away it is.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vEqKm2JH97g/VesV94tn7xI/AAAAAAAAxu4/MLLUtOZMoNk/s640/highway.gif)

Again, the hypocrisy you display is astounding. What is that picture of?  What is it supposed to prove?  How does it relate to the sun's case?  How does it relate to the moon's case?  Why aren't any of your glowy balls appearing cutoff by a sharp line as they fade? A picture from a dubious source with no context is an intellectually honest demonstration of nothing.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 03, 2016, 01:57:03 AM
Why aren't any of your glowy balls appearing cutoff by a sharp line as they fade?

This is actually a really good point, and proof that this effect has nothing to do with the size of the sun.

1. The sun is cut off by the horizon as it sets. It appears as a half circle for a brief period of time.
2. These "glowy balls" always have the shape of the camera aperture. If the camera aperture is round, they will always appear round. Never as a half circle. If you cover up half of the source light, the "glowy ball" doesn't become half covered up. It just becomes a dimmer "glowy ball". Notice the blinking of some of the "glowy balls" in the image. The blinking is happening when the headlights are being partially or completely covered by something else. Despite this, they never change shape.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: CableDawg on June 04, 2016, 03:46:03 AM
I have never in my life seen glare magically magnify an object (and the details on its surface), and make it appear the exact same size and shape no matter how far away it is.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vEqKm2JH97g/VesV94tn7xI/AAAAAAAAxu4/MLLUtOZMoNk/s640/highway.gif)

1.  This is not glare.  This is out of focus.

2.  If you notice the intensity of light coming from the farthest objects is dim and the light gets brighter as the object get closer to the camera.  To support your claim of magical magnification, if this where an actual representation of glare, the light coming from the farthest objects would have the same intensity as those closer to the camera since something is magically magnifying the light.  This can even be seen in the two objects on the right of the image which are receding from the camera, the intensity of the light diminished with distance.

Sir fantastic Rowbotham's statement is completely off base.  Light diffused by a material (any material, including the atmosphere) is not magnified.  Covering a bare bulb with a semi-opaque cover does not make the light brighter.  By the logic of his statement and those you've made in support of, the light of the moon should be noticeably (if not incredibly) brighter on a completely cloud covered night simply because clouds are the "aqueous particles" which he speaks of.

Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: rabinoz on June 04, 2016, 04:46:43 AM
I have never in my life seen glare magically magnify an object (and the details on its surface), and make it appear the exact same size and shape no matter how far away it is.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vEqKm2JH97g/VesV94tn7xI/AAAAAAAAxu4/MLLUtOZMoNk/s640/highway.gif)
I know this has been here a while, but I am still completely unable to fathom what a grossly out of focus photograph of what I assume is car headlights is supposed to prove.
Maybe your are trying to prove that glare hides all the detail, if so thanks,
but we knew that already,
Now, surely you are not going to claim that "glare" magnifies the moon when is near the horizon, while magically retaining all the detail.  The following two photos wer taken recently. The camera was hand-held at 1,600 mm 35 mm equiv focal length, so may not be as sharp as they might be.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160524%2019.36%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%20%206.3deg%20Azm%20107.7deg%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsaytjiipb.jpg)
20160524 19:36 - Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.516° at - 1600mm
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160519%2022-08%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2071.5deg%20Azm%200.1deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zps6kexikcd.jpg)
20160519 22:08 - Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.511° at - 1600mm
Note that in both photos the moon's detail is apparent. The different orientations of the moon is simply that I was facing a different direction.
In the left photo the moon is 6.3° above the horizon and the right is 71.5° above the horizon. I "calibrated" the camera by photographing a millimetre tape at a distance of 8 m using the same (1,600 mm) focal length. Note that the photos are not taken on the same night.
In the photo close to the horizon (Alt = 6.3°) the diameter of the moon on the original image is 1730 pixels, which gives an apparent size of 0.516°.
In the highest altitude photo (Alt = 71.5°) the diameter of the moon on the original image is 1713 pixels, which gives an apparent size of 0.511°.

The calculated apparent sizes for the moon (from size and allowing for the moon's known ellipticity) at those times are: 0.503° for the left photo (cf 0.516°) and 0.498° for the right photo (cf 0.511°).
So I'm a couple of % out in my calibration!

The apparent size of the moon does not change size from near the horizon to near overhead other than for the quite calculable changes in distances to the moon.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: markjo on June 05, 2016, 01:44:24 AM
Glare is clearly magnifying the light source. Depending on the mechanism of magnification (there are a variety of types of glare), I see no reason why the details could not remain in tact.

Tom, I think that you're using a definition of "glare" that the rest of the world is unfamiliar with:
Quote from: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/glare
glare  [glair]
noun
1. a very harsh, bright, dazzling light:
    in the glare of sunlight.

2. a fiercely or angrily piercing stare.

3. dazzling or showy appearance; showiness.

verb (used without object), glared, glaring.

4. to shine with or reflect a very harsh, bright, dazzling light.

5. to stare with a fiercely or angrily piercing look.

6. Archaic. to appear conspicuous; stand out obtrusively.

verb (used with object), glared, glaring.

7. to express with a glare:
    They glared their anger at each other.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 05, 2016, 02:42:57 PM
I have never in my life seen glare magically magnify an object (and the details on its surface), and make it appear the exact same size and shape no matter how far away it is.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vEqKm2JH97g/VesV94tn7xI/AAAAAAAAxu4/MLLUtOZMoNk/s640/highway.gif)

1.  This is not glare.  This is out of focus.

2.  If you notice the intensity of light coming from the farthest objects is dim and the light gets brighter as the object get closer to the camera.  To support your claim of magical magnification, if this where an actual representation of glare, the light coming from the farthest objects would have the same intensity as those closer to the camera since something is magically magnifying the light.  This can even be seen in the two objects on the right of the image which are receding from the camera, the intensity of the light diminished with distance.

Sir fantastic Rowbotham's statement is completely off base.  Light diffused by a material (any material, including the atmosphere) is not magnified.  Covering a bare bulb with a semi-opaque cover does not make the light brighter.  By the logic of his statement and those you've made in support of, the light of the moon should be noticeably (if not incredibly) brighter on a completely cloud covered night simply because clouds are the "aqueous particles" which he speaks of.

The effect of lights remaining the same size into the distance is possible in other scenes which are clearly in focus. Look at the headlights in this video. The lights in the distance are clearly much bigger than the dim pinpricks of light they should be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaPFBgGpdVU
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 05, 2016, 03:36:05 PM
How small should they be?  Your analysis seems woefully incomplete.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rounder on June 05, 2016, 04:16:38 PM
So you found some photos and video of headlights at a distance of, what, a half mile?  And you extrapolate from there to how the sun appears from thousands of miles away?  You must have forgotten that you don't believe that small-scale evidence is representative of large scale behavior.  Perhaps a reminder is in order (emphasis added):

The math is very limited, and assumes that local effects hold true endlessly. Unless you have accurately experimented at all scales, it cannot be said that we know how things will look like at all scales based on math alone.
Replace "math" with "photo" and you've argued against your own attempt to prove sun glare from headlight evidence.

But you have suggested a method before, which you can use now (emphasis added):
Show us a real world example of how objects at that sort of distance appear and behave.
All a Flat Earther need do is find a place where you can see a car headlight "at that sort of distance", photograph it, and get back to us.  The wiki has the sun at an elevation of "about 3000 miles" at local noon, and more than twice that at apparent sunset due to moving west around its path.  But I'll accept a much shorter distance: if the effect you describe is real (and if the earth is flat) you should be able to photograph headlights in Chicago from a vantage point on the east flank of the Rockies, and they should be HUGE after all that atmospheric magnification!
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: andruszkow on June 05, 2016, 06:04:13 PM
Headlights are configured to illuminate the ground in front of them, the sockets are angled downwards (a few degrees).

They'll obviously appear brighter at a distance when filmed like this at a higher altitude when pointing in the direction of the camera.

You can't use this for comparison, at all. It's shocking that it's actually needed to tell you that.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 05, 2016, 08:28:33 PM
Headlights are configured to illuminate the ground in front of them, the sockets are angled downwards (a few degrees).

They'll obviously appear brighter at a distance when filmed like this at a higher altitude when pointing in the direction of the camera.

You can't use this for comparison, at all. It's shocking that it's actually needed to tell you that.

The inconsistent perspective effect is also seen on other types of light sources:

(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/4a/Streets_at_night.jpg)
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 05, 2016, 09:05:15 PM
How small should they be?  Your analysis seems woefully incomplete.

They certainly should not be the same size down the entirety of the highway.

So you found some photos and video of headlights at a distance of, what, a half mile?  And you extrapolate from there to how the sun appears from thousands of miles away?  You must have forgotten that you don't believe that small-scale evidence is representative of large scale behavior.  Perhaps a reminder is in order (emphasis added):

The math is very limited, and assumes that local effects hold true endlessly. Unless you have accurately experimented at all scales, it cannot be said that we know how things will look like at all scales based on math alone.
Replace "math" with "photo" and you've argued against your own attempt to prove sun glare from headlight evidence.

But you have suggested a method before, which you can use now (emphasis added):
Show us a real world example of how objects at that sort of distance appear and behave.
All a Flat Earther need do is find a place where you can see a car headlight "at that sort of distance", photograph it, and get back to us.  The wiki has the sun at an elevation of "about 3000 miles" at local noon, and more than twice that at apparent sunset due to moving west around its path.  But I'll accept a much shorter distance: if the effect you describe is real (and if the earth is flat) you should be able to photograph headlights in Chicago from a vantage point on the east flank of the Rockies, and they should be HUGE after all that atmospheric magnification!

What I've posted is evidence for a magnification effect which contradicts perspective rules. Whether this is what is happening to the sun is not approached.

The effects I've shown directly contradict the statement of the OP: "Stuff appears smaller with distance. This is common knowledge."
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2016, 12:11:42 AM
(http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT)
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 06, 2016, 12:47:50 AM
How small should they be?  Your analysis seems woefully incomplete.

They certainly should not be the same size down the entirety of the highway.

So you found some photos and video of headlights at a distance of, what, a half mile?  And you extrapolate from there to how the sun appears from thousands of miles away?  You must have forgotten that you don't believe that small-scale evidence is representative of large scale behavior.  Perhaps a reminder is in order (emphasis added):

The math is very limited, and assumes that local effects hold true endlessly. Unless you have accurately experimented at all scales, it cannot be said that we know how things will look like at all scales based on math alone.
Replace "math" with "photo" and you've argued against your own attempt to prove sun glare from headlight evidence.

But you have suggested a method before, which you can use now (emphasis added):
Show us a real world example of how objects at that sort of distance appear and behave.
All a Flat Earther need do is find a place where you can see a car headlight "at that sort of distance", photograph it, and get back to us.  The wiki has the sun at an elevation of "about 3000 miles" at local noon, and more than twice that at apparent sunset due to moving west around its path.  But I'll accept a much shorter distance: if the effect you describe is real (and if the earth is flat) you should be able to photograph headlights in Chicago from a vantage point on the east flank of the Rockies, and they should be HUGE after all that atmospheric magnification!

What I've posted is evidence for a magnification effect which contradicts perspective rules. Whether this is what is happening to the sun is not approached.

The effects I've shown directly contradict the statement of the OP: "Stuff appears smaller with distance. This is common knowledge."

Not it doesn't. Things do appear smaller with distance. You have provided photos with no analysis or context. For all we know, they could be doctored as well. I am not claiming they are, but you have not shown anything really.

Regardless the OP is about the sun, so if you aren't addressing that you are presenting Red Herrings.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 06, 2016, 02:07:13 AM
They certainly should not be the same size down the entirety of the highway.

They are not the same size down the entirety of the highway. They definitely get smaller with distance. This is the third time you have claimed a piece of "evidence" shows light staying the same size, when in fact the light gets smaller. You should really take a closer look at the evidence you post. Pause the video. Zoom in. Measure it. They get smaller, as expected. (Fair warning: it is hard to measure precisely due to the motion blur.)

Quote
The effects I've shown directly contradict the statement of the OP: "Stuff appears smaller with distance. This is common knowledge."

So far, every piece of evidence you have posted has been consistent with my statement. (With the exception of the out-of-focus image, in which the size of the objects is just an effect of the camera aperture)
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: CableDawg on June 06, 2016, 02:30:57 AM
Headlights are configured to illuminate the ground in front of them, the sockets are angled downwards (a few degrees).

They'll obviously appear brighter at a distance when filmed like this at a higher altitude when pointing in the direction of the camera.

You can't use this for comparison, at all. It's shocking that it's actually needed to tell you that.

The inconsistent perspective effect is also seen on other types of light sources:

(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/4a/Streets_at_night.jpg)

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate. 
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2016, 04:26:42 AM
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 06, 2016, 04:43:17 AM
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

So headlights yes?  But not, a lighthouse...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VIY1i6DsEA

Try again.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 06, 2016, 05:02:49 AM
So headlights yes?  But not, a lighthouse...

Try again.

He's not talking about zooming. He is talking about physically changing the distance between the person/camera and the light.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 06, 2016, 05:15:19 AM
So headlights yes?  But not, a lighthouse...

Try again.

He's not talking about zooming. He is talking about physically changing the distance between the person/camera and the light.

Fair enough, but regardless you can see that the light on the lighthouse is not the same size at the distance of the camera as it would be if you were closer to it.

His principle does not even hold up with headlights all the time, as it would have to:

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/video/car-with-bright-headlights-approaching-at-night-stock-video-footage/mr_00078765

This is a supposedly ubiquitous phenomenon that does not stand up to even a cursory inspection.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: CableDawg on June 06, 2016, 11:39:09 AM
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

So in your post with the nice little gif, which you provided as support of your magical magnification idea, automotive headlights are of high enough intensity to catch onto the atmosphere (what does that even mean?) yet in your second photo, which clearly shows automobiles in the distance the magical magnification is not relevant for some reason.

Which is it?
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: rabinoz on June 06, 2016, 11:40:09 AM
The sun's appearance is complicated by glare, but the moon's appearance if definitely not distorted by glare.

I have taken quite a few photographs of the Moon at with a 35 mm equiv focal length of 1,600 mm.
These were at various altitudes and I presented a couple in the post Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect" « Reply #13 on: June 04, 2016, 04:46:43 AM »  (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5058.msg98172#msg98172).

I believe that I can quite unequivocally say that the Moon stays almost the same size as it moves across the sky, at least when comparing 6° and 71° elevation.
The slight change in the moon's apparent size is exactly that expected from the change in distance from observer (me) to the Moon. This is due to both the ellipticity of the Moon's orbit and the Moon's elevation. Here are the photos, see the other post for more detail.

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160524%2019.36%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%20%206.3deg%20Azm%20107.7deg%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsaytjiipb.jpg)
20160524 19:36 - Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.516° at - 1600mm
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160519%2022-08%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2071.5deg%20Azm%200.1deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zps6kexikcd.jpg)
20160519 22:08 - Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.511° at - 1600mm

The details of the Moon are just as obvious near the horizon as near overhead.
Take it as a fact that there is no massive change in the Moon's apparent size as is expected in the Flat-earth model!
If anyone doubts this, go do your own measurements,
but please don't come up with perspective or glare effects that magically just happen to mimic exactly what is predicted with the globe model
unless you have a sound basis and not guesswork.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2016, 01:12:03 PM
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

So headlights yes?  But not, a lighthouse...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VIY1i6DsEA

Try again.


It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 06, 2016, 02:31:36 PM
It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.

It is possible, but it is not reality:

Quote from: http://www.lighthousepreservation.org/beacons.php
Modern lighthouse beacons vary in power from about 10,000 candelas to about 1 million candelas, depending on the prevailing weather conditions and the visibility requirements of shipping traffic in the particular area.

This makes the low end of light house brightness at 50 times the average headlight high beam intensity and equal to a high output xenon headlamp.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: rabinoz on June 07, 2016, 12:02:54 AM
It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.

You are making it look more and more like "My local bit of earth looks flat, so the earth is flat", the guess everything else!

As I have attempted to stress, but quite unsuccessfully,
the moon does exactly the same thing as we claim the sun does - stays the same size (within exactly the variation predicted from the observer to the moon).

So I'll post it again, and again!

Now, surely you are not going to claim that "glare" magnifies the moon when is near the horizon, while magically retaining all the detail.  The following two photos wer taken recently. The camera was hand-held at 1,600 mm 35 mm equiv focal length, so may not be as sharp as they might be.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160524%2019.36%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%20%206.3deg%20Azm%20107.7deg%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsaytjiipb.jpg)
20160524 19:36 - Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.516° at - 1600mm
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160519%2022-08%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2071.5deg%20Azm%200.1deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zps6kexikcd.jpg)
20160519 22:08 - Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.511° at - 1600mm
Note that in both photos the moon's detail is quite apparent. The different orientations of the moon is simply that I was facing a different direction.
In the left photo the moon is 6.3° above the horizon and the right is 71.5° above the horizon. I "calibrated" the camera by photographing a millimetre tape at a distance of 8 m using the same (1,600 mm) focal length. Note that the photos are not taken on the same night.
In the photo close to the horizon (Alt = 6.3°) the diameter of the moon on the original image is 1730 pixels, which gives an apparent size of 0.516°.
In the highest altitude photo (Alt = 71.5°) the diameter of the moon on the original image is 1713 pixels, which gives an apparent size of 0.511°.

The calculated apparent sizes for the moon (from size and allowing for the moon's known orbital ellipticity) at those times are: 0.503° for the left photo (cf 0.516°) and 0.498° for the right photo (cf 0.511°). So I'm a bit in my calibration!

The apparent size of the moon does not change size from near the horizon to near overhead other than for the quite calculable changes in distances to the moon.

I could do exactly the same thing for the sun (or YOU could and prove it for yourself), but I haven't got a solar filter and don't intended wasting my money - I am not the one guessing about possible causes - I KNOW!

I don't like shouting but sometimes it is necessary!

The apparent size (as subtended angle of the disk) of the sun and moon do not ckange any more than predicted by the "globe theory"!
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 07, 2016, 04:29:05 PM
It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.

It is possible, but it is not reality:

Quote from: http://www.lighthousepreservation.org/beacons.php
Modern lighthouse beacons vary in power from about 10,000 candelas to about 1 million candelas, depending on the prevailing weather conditions and the visibility requirements of shipping traffic in the particular area.

This makes the low end of light house brightness at 50 times the average headlight high beam intensity and equal to a high output xenon headlamp.

If you were designing a very powerful light house, would you make it so that it shown at the sea or at the people's houses behind it?

It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.

You are making it look more and more like "My local bit of earth looks flat, so the earth is flat", the guess everything else!

As I have attempted to stress, but quite unsuccessfully,
the moon does exactly the same thing as we claim the sun does - stays the same size (within exactly the variation predicted from the observer to the moon).

So I'll post it again, and again!

Now, surely you are not going to claim that "glare" magnifies the moon when is near the horizon, while magically retaining all the detail.  The following two photos wer taken recently. The camera was hand-held at 1,600 mm 35 mm equiv focal length, so may not be as sharp as they might be.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160524%2019.36%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%20%206.3deg%20Azm%20107.7deg%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsaytjiipb.jpg)
20160524 19:36 - Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.516° at - 1600mm
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160519%2022-08%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2071.5deg%20Azm%200.1deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zps6kexikcd.jpg)
20160519 22:08 - Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.511° at - 1600mm
Note that in both photos the moon's detail is quite apparent. The different orientations of the moon is simply that I was facing a different direction.
In the left photo the moon is 6.3° above the horizon and the right is 71.5° above the horizon. I "calibrated" the camera by photographing a millimetre tape at a distance of 8 m using the same (1,600 mm) focal length. Note that the photos are not taken on the same night.
In the photo close to the horizon (Alt = 6.3°) the diameter of the moon on the original image is 1730 pixels, which gives an apparent size of 0.516°.
In the highest altitude photo (Alt = 71.5°) the diameter of the moon on the original image is 1713 pixels, which gives an apparent size of 0.511°.

The calculated apparent sizes for the moon (from size and allowing for the moon's known orbital ellipticity) at those times are: 0.503° for the left photo (cf 0.516°) and 0.498° for the right photo (cf 0.511°). So I'm a bit in my calibration!

The apparent size of the moon does not change size from near the horizon to near overhead other than for the quite calculable changes in distances to the moon.

I could do exactly the same thing for the sun (or YOU could and prove it for yourself), but I haven't got a solar filter and don't intended wasting my money - I am not the one guessing about possible causes - I KNOW!

I don't like shouting but sometimes it is necessary!

The apparent size (as subtended angle of the disk) of the sun and moon do not ckange any more than predicted by the "globe theory"!

It's a magnification effect, so obviously we should expect the moon to be magnified.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 07, 2016, 04:53:46 PM
It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.

It is possible, but it is not reality:

Quote from: http://www.lighthousepreservation.org/beacons.php
Modern lighthouse beacons vary in power from about 10,000 candelas to about 1 million candelas, depending on the prevailing weather conditions and the visibility requirements of shipping traffic in the particular area.

This makes the low end of light house brightness at 50 times the average headlight high beam intensity and equal to a high output xenon headlamp.

If you were designing a very powerful light house, would you make it so that it shown at the sea or at the people's houses behind it?

How is this even relevant?
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 07, 2016, 05:29:50 PM
It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.

It is possible, but it is not reality:

Quote from: http://www.lighthousepreservation.org/beacons.php
Modern lighthouse beacons vary in power from about 10,000 candelas to about 1 million candelas, depending on the prevailing weather conditions and the visibility requirements of shipping traffic in the particular area.

This makes the low end of light house brightness at 50 times the average headlight high beam intensity and equal to a high output xenon headlamp.

If you were designing a very powerful light house, would you make it so that it shown at the sea or at the people's houses behind it?

How is this even relevant?

Lets see what the light house looks like from the open ocean. It is logical that a light house designer would try to avoid focusing the light directly on the people living behind it.

Here is a light house that seems to be shining directly at the camera:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILGbjMMLlpU
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 07, 2016, 05:36:40 PM
fascinating.  How is this relevant?
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 07, 2016, 05:41:33 PM
fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 07, 2016, 05:49:01 PM
fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.

Wow where to begin?  If the lighthouse is not directing 1,000,000 candela's (https://www.google.ca/search?q=candela&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=9QdXV7bQKYfmyQLW4LrADA), that does not mean it is not emitting 1,000,000 candela's.  How many candela's is this lighthouse purported to be emitting?  How far away is the lighthouse being filmed from?  How does a lighthouse not emitting 1,000,000 candela's exclude it from being as powerful as a headlight which is approximately 4 orders of magnitude dimmer, on average, than the upper limit of lighthouse brightness?

You have no rebutted anything that I have put forth. 
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: rabinoz on June 08, 2016, 05:27:52 AM
fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.
Surely you are not still pushing the "known magnification effect" as the mechanism for keeping the sun the same size from sun rise to overhead.
That effect could hardly apply to the moon, which is much dimmer (a factor of about 360,000) but has features that are clearly visible when near the horizon and near overhead.  The following 3 photos were taken recently and show the moon at three quite different altitudes (on different days):
(http://i.imgur.com/qilfjje.jpg)
Date: 22nd May, 2016 Time: 17:42
Moon at Alt 2.1°, Az 107.6°
   
(http://i.imgur.com/ZvHEpFv.jpg)
Date: 24th May 2016 Time 19:36
Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.52° at - 1600mm
   
(http://i.imgur.com/iCaudmV.jpg)
Date 19th May 2016 Time 22:08
Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.52° at - 1600mm
I am sure that the focal length in the right two is 1,600 mm (at 6.3° and 71.5° altitude), but I am not certain of the on one the left (at 2.1° altitude) - I'll repeat it next full moon.

The moon stays essentially the same size from the moon rising to setting, and I cannot see how that can be attributed to "glare"!
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2016, 04:39:51 PM
fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.

Wow where to begin?  If the lighthouse is not directing 1,000,000 candela's (https://www.google.ca/search?q=candela&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=9QdXV7bQKYfmyQLW4LrADA), that does not mean it is not emitting 1,000,000 candela's.  How many candela's is this lighthouse purported to be emitting?  How far away is the lighthouse being filmed from?  How does a lighthouse not emitting 1,000,000 candela's exclude it from being as powerful as a headlight which is approximately 4 orders of magnitude dimmer, on average, than the upper limit of lighthouse brightness?

You have no rebutted anything that I have put forth.

Light houses are directional. They have a lens in them. They don't shine in all areas at once. Looking at the light house from the side may produce a glow, but you won't feel the full brunt of the beam unless it shines directly at you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens#/media/File:Fresnel_lighthouse_lens_diagram.png)
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2016, 04:41:32 PM
The moon stays essentially the same size from the moon rising to setting, and I cannot see how that can be attributed to "glare"!

The moon is very bright, but somewhat dimmed after the light passes through the atmosphere. It's the second brightest object in the sky apart from the sun.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2016, 04:53:53 PM
fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.

Wow where to begin?  If the lighthouse is not directing 1,000,000 candela's (https://www.google.ca/search?q=candela&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=9QdXV7bQKYfmyQLW4LrADA), that does not mean it is not emitting 1,000,000 candela's.  How many candela's is this lighthouse purported to be emitting?  How far away is the lighthouse being filmed from?  How does a lighthouse not emitting 1,000,000 candela's exclude it from being as powerful as a headlight which is approximately 4 orders of magnitude dimmer, on average, than the upper limit of lighthouse brightness?

You have no rebutted anything that I have put forth.

Light houses are directional. They have a lens in them. They don't shine in all areas at once. Looking at the light house from the side may produce a glow, but you won't feel the full brunt of the beam unless it shines directly at you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens#/media/File:Fresnel_lighthouse_lens_diagram.png)

At what point is a lighthouse dimmer than a headlight?
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: andruszkow on June 08, 2016, 07:37:48 PM
Lighthouses are built to look different depending from which bearing you observe it from.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: rabinoz on June 10, 2016, 01:43:57 AM
The moon stays essentially the same size from the moon rising to setting, and I cannot see how that can be attributed to "glare"!

The moon is very bright, but somewhat dimmed after the light passes through the atmosphere. It's the second brightest object in the sky apart from the sun.
And your magic glare magnification keeps the moon's size to that predicted by the Globe model, while preserving the features perfectly!

Please show some evidence that the "Bishop Glare Effect", as we now should call can cause magnification without losing detail!
But, you have never given a convincing reason how the "Flat Earth Moon" could ever get down near the horizon anyway.
There is absolutely no way tat perspective can do it! And, as I have tried to point out even Rowbotham's "Law of Perspective" does not allow this either.

I know that in another place he claims that perspective causes the sun and moon to "seem to set behind the horizon", but . . . . . . . . . . .

And if you can put this sunrise and sunset down to "perspective" and "glare", you will be pleased to hear that I give up.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 10, 2016, 04:16:22 AM
This thread has gotten a bit off topic in arguing about Lighthouse brightness.

At this point, I think it is safe to say that Tom Bishop has absolutely no evidence to support his absurd theory that "lights stay the same apparent size as they get farther away".

Tom Bishop: If you have actual evidence, now is the time to show it! (please actually take the time to do some measuring before you post more videos that contradict your theory)

Other flat earthers: Does ANYONE have another theory as to why the sun doesn't get smaller as it gets farther away from us? If not, ask yourself: can you honestly continue believing in a theory that so obviously contradicts reality?

Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: CableDawg on June 11, 2016, 02:25:26 AM
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

Come on Tom.  Answer the question.

How is it that light intensity and "catching on the atmosphere" relevant in one of your provided proofs yet doesn't seem to be relevant in the other of your provided proofs, even though they both contain images of automobile headlights, which you contend are of high enough intensity to "catch on the atmosphere".

This is not a difficult question to answer.  You provided two supposed proofs for the same concept yet they prove nothing (individually or combined) and one is directly counter to what you are saying is fact.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: rabinoz on June 11, 2016, 09:26:51 PM
Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

I thought this sight "worked on evidence" - so now being "mentioned on our Wiki page" is evidence?

Please present some physical mechanism (with evidence) that this effect (if it exists) could somehow magically magnify objects in such a way that they stay exactly the same size as they recede AND retain their detail. Yes, I know the moon can change slightly in size, but by just the amount predicted by the Globe Earth Model!

I have never seen any evidence that "glare" can magnify anything while retaining its detail, and you NEVER even address this aspect.

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160524%2019.36%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%20%206.3deg%20Azm%20107.7deg%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsaytjiipb.jpg)
20160524 19:36 - Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.516° at - 1600mm
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160519%2022-08%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2071.5deg%20Azm%200.1deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zps6kexikcd.jpg)
20160519 22:08 - Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.511° at - 1600mm
Note that in both photos the moon's detail is quite apparent. Yes, the left photo might be a bit redder (but that could be just exposure), but the detail in not much different.

Nothing you have shown, and nothing the Wiki or from Rowbotham gives actual evidence, they just state it.

Really though, Hans Christian Anderson wrote better fairy tales.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2016, 12:11:22 AM
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

Come on Tom.  Answer the question.

How is it that light intensity and "catching on the atmosphere" relevant in one of your provided proofs yet doesn't seem to be relevant in the other of your provided proofs, even though they both contain images of automobile headlights, which you contend are of high enough intensity to "catch on the atmosphere".

This is not a difficult question to answer.  You provided two supposed proofs for the same concept yet they prove nothing (individually or combined) and one is directly counter to what you are saying is fact.

It's relevant in all images. If the light source isn't bright enough, it can't catch onto the atmosphere and enlarge. Different photographs at different angles or conditions may cause some light sources not to enlarge, such as when viewing the glow of a light house from its backside when it is shining its directed beam at the ocean.

A picture of a dim light which is not being magnified is not a counter-proof. In the image of magnified lights we see that the less intense light sources in the distance are not being magnified.

Quote
I thought this sight "worked on evidence" - so now being "mentioned on our Wiki page" is evidence?

Yes, the images in the Wiki are evidence. Some light sources, such as the headlights, are magnified, and some dimmer light sources, such as the light from the pavement and small objects in the distance, are not magnified.

Consider the following image from the Wiki:

(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/a/a7/Headlight_example.jpg)

 The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see. The headlights are bright, and therefore the magnification effect occurs. Other objects in this scene, are not as bright as the headlights, such as the tail lights of the cars moving away, and therefore naturally shrink. This is evidence that brighter light sources magnifiy and dimmer light sources do not.

Quote
Please present some physical mechanism (with evidence) that this effect (if it exists) could somehow magically magnify objects in such a way that they stay exactly the same size as they recede AND retain their detail.

We are only seeing examples of light bulbs in the distance, and therefore they do not much detail to them. Perhaps if a very bright and powerful projector were put in the distance and pointed at the camera, with enough lumens to cause the effects demonstrated in this thread, the effect would occur.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 12, 2016, 03:23:32 AM
The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't magically become true. It has been pointed out to you MANY times already. The headlights are NOT the same size all the way down the highway. Please open up some image processing software and count the pixels yourself, so you don't keep posting false information. I recommend GIMP (https://www.gimp.org/) if you don't want to spend money on Photoshop.

Quote
Quote
Please present some physical mechanism (with evidence) that this effect (if it exists) could somehow magically magnify objects in such a way that they stay exactly the same size as they recede AND retain their detail.
We are only seeing examples of light bulbs in the distance, and therefore they do not much detail to them. Perhaps if a very bright and powerful projector were put in the distance and pointed at the camera, with enough lumens to cause the effects demonstrated in this thread, the effect would occur.

"Perhaps" is the key word. You have absolutely zero evidence to show that this happens, and no logical reason why it would happen. It's just a desperate attempt to explain away observations that contradict the flat earth model.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2016, 03:36:28 AM
The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't magically become true. It has been pointed out to you MANY times already. The headlights are NOT the same size all the way down the highway. Please open up some image processing software and count the pixels yourself, so you don't keep posting false information. I recommend GIMP (https://www.gimp.org/) if you don't want to spend money on Photoshop.

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 12, 2016, 03:37:55 AM
So your standard is, "looks close enough!"  That's terrible. Just terrible.

Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: garygreen on June 12, 2016, 04:30:57 AM
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/a/a7/Headlight_example.jpg)

 The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see. The headlights are bright, and therefore the magnification effect occurs. Other objects in this scene, are not as bright as the headlights, such as the tail lights of the cars moving away, and therefore naturally shrink. This is evidence that brighter light sources magnifiy and dimmer light sources do not.

All measurements are experiments. Your experiment does not control for the angle of orientation of the light source. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you go back to middle school and learn some science. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=683.msg9074;topicseen#msg9074)
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 12, 2016, 04:50:46 AM
It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

So now you are trying to give excuses as to why your only piece of evidence doesn't support your theory? If it doesn't support your theory, it can't be used as evidence. Find different evidence that you don't have to provide excuses for.

Quote
It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

No one denies that the size of the lights don't stay proportional to the size of the car. It is called glare. It is a well understood, noncontroversial photographic phenomena. However, in order to be evidence for your theory, it needs to appear more than just "slightly bigger than expected". It needs to:

1. Appear the same size regardless of distance.
2. Details of the object being "magnified" must be preserved.

None of your "evidence" shows this. Therefore, you have no evidence to support your theory. You don't even have a logical reason as to WHY it would happen.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: rabinoz on June 12, 2016, 11:10:38 PM
The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't magically become true. It has been pointed out to you MANY times already. The headlights are NOT the same size all the way down the highway. Please open up some image processing software and count the pixels yourself, so you don't keep posting false information. I recommend GIMP (https://www.gimp.org/) if you don't want to spend money on Photoshop.

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

Tom, just why do you never address the issue that the apparent "magnification" by glare could never retain the detail of the objects "magnified".

Even in the case of the sun, the glare can be readily removed by a suitable filter shown sunspots an other features on the sun.

True, in the last few 5 or 10 degrees before sunset detail is often gradually lost due the longer light travel in the atmosphere, but in many of these cases the sharp round  disc of the sun is often retained, quite unchanged in size.

BUT, most of the change in distance from the observer to the Flat Earth Sun occurs in the time from when the sun is overhead till it gets this point anyway.
So many "proofs" of the Flat Earth explanation of sunset only show the last little bit, but when looking at the (non-existent) change in size that is almost irrelevant.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2016, 04:47:37 PM
It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

So now you are trying to give excuses as to why your only piece of evidence doesn't support your theory? If it doesn't support your theory, it can't be used as evidence. Find different evidence that you don't have to provide excuses for.

It supports the theory. Those headlights are pretty consistent.

Quote
Quote
It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

No one denies that the size of the lights don't stay proportional to the size of the car. It is called glare. It is a well understood, noncontroversial photographic phenomena. However, in order to be evidence for your theory, it needs to appear more than just "slightly bigger than expected". It needs to:

1. Appear the same size regardless of distance.

The headlights in the distance are pretty consistent.

Quote
2. Details of the object being "magnified" must be preserved.

I see details. Those headlights in the last image aren't perfect circles. They have detail to them.

Quote
None of your "evidence" shows this. Therefore, you have no evidence to support your theory. You don't even have a logical reason as to WHY it would happen.

The Wiki page explains the reason why.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 13, 2016, 10:33:56 PM
I realize you are just desperately grasping at straws right now, but I will answer seriously anyway.

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.
So now you are trying to give excuses as to why your only piece of evidence doesn't support your theory? If it doesn't support your theory, it can't be used as evidence. Find different evidence that you don't have to provide excuses for.
It supports the theory. Those headlights are pretty consistent.

"Pretty consistent"? Consistently what? They consistently get smaller with distance. This is the opposite of what your theory predicts.

Quote
Quote
Quote
It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking
No one denies that the size of the lights don't stay proportional to the size of the car. It is called glare. It is a well understood, noncontroversial photographic phenomena. However, in order to be evidence for your theory, it needs to appear more than just "slightly bigger than expected". It needs to:

1. Appear the same size regardless of distance.

The headlights in the distance are pretty consistent.

You are just trying to be evasive with your wording. Do you really believe that the headlights in the distance don't appear smaller? If so, state it clearly. If not, then just admit that this photo doesn't support your theory.

Quote
Quote
2. Details of the object being "magnified" must be preserved.

I see details. Those headlights in the last image aren't perfect circles. They have detail to them.

Those aren't the details we are talking about and you know it. With the sun and moon, we can see distinct interior details.

Quote
Quote
None of your "evidence" shows this. Therefore, you have no evidence to support your theory. You don't even have a logical reason as to WHY it would happen.

The Wiki page explains the reason why.

The explanation given on the wiki is just silly, but I will concede this point for now, only because I would rather focus on the complete lack of evidence.

My main point stands. All evidence presented so far fails to support your theory.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: rabinoz on June 15, 2016, 11:50:39 AM

I see details. Those headlights in the last image aren't perfect circles. They have detail to them.


Tom can you honestly say that the photo of the moon near the horizon looks as though it has been "magnified by glare"?

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160524%2019.36%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%20%206.3deg%20Azm%20107.7deg%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsaytjiipb.jpg)
20160524 19:36 - Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.516° at - 1600mm
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160519%2022-08%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2071.5deg%20Azm%200.1deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zps6kexikcd.jpg)
20160519 22:08 - Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.511° at - 1600mm
Note that in both photos the moon's detail is quite apparent. Yes, the left photo might be a bit redder (but that could be just exposure), but the detail in not much different.The left one was only 6.3° above the horizon and the other at 71.5°.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Venus on June 15, 2016, 12:05:18 PM
The moon stays essentially the same size from the moon rising to setting, and I cannot see how that can be attributed to "glare"!

The moon is very bright, but somewhat dimmed after the light passes through the atmosphere. It's the second brightest object in the sky apart from the sun.

Tom ... if the sun is a "spotlight" and only shines downwards... how does the moon get lit up by this spotlight??? Seeing the moon is at the same height above the earth as the sun... ??
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Joeking360 on June 15, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
Yes I completely agree it makes so much more sense than a spherical earth. I only wish everyone would see the truth that is so blatant to us! Thank you for trying to make the world a more intelligent and flat place. I wish you good luck in your future efforts Sir.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2016, 02:05:46 PM
"Pretty consistent"? Consistently what? They consistently get smaller with distance. This is the opposite of what your theory predicts.

They are fairly consistent. Any one-pixel-in-difference analysis is petty. Stop the denial.

Quote
Those aren't the details we are talking about and you know it. With the sun and moon, we can see distinct interior details.

What's the difference between interior or exterior details? They are details. We've seen that it the magnification effect can also change color depending on the light source, too.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 15, 2016, 03:43:17 PM
"Pretty consistent"? Consistently what? They consistently get smaller with distance. This is the opposite of what your theory predicts.

They are fairly consistent. Any one-pixel-in-difference analysis is petty. Stop the denial.

They are only a few pixels in size to begin with. They start at about 8 pixels and go down to 2 pixels (If I remember correctly). That's one quarter of the original size. If you want the difference to be more than a few pixels, use a higher resolution photo.

Quote
Quote
Those aren't the details we are talking about and you know it. With the sun and moon, we can see distinct interior details.

What's the difference between interior or exterior details? They are details. We've seen that it the magnification effect can also change color depending on the light source, too.

With the moon, we can take clear high resolution shots showing craters, valleys, "maria", etc. We can see a distinct, sharp edge.

With the sun, we can take clear high resolution shots showing sunspots and flares. We can see a distinct, sharp edge.

With these pictures of glare, there are no interior details. There is no distinct edge. All you can do is say "Eh, it's sort of not perfectly circular..."

If you can't tell the difference between these two scenarios, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 15, 2016, 07:52:52 PM
This thread has gotten a bit off topic in arguing about Lighthouse brightness.

At this point, I think it is safe to say that Tom Bishop has absolutely no evidence to support his absurd theory that "lights stay the same apparent size as they get farther away".

Tom Bishop: If you have actual evidence, now is the time to show it! (please actually take the time to do some measuring before you post more videos that contradict your theory)

Other flat earthers: Does ANYONE have another theory as to why the sun doesn't get smaller as it gets farther away from us? If not, ask yourself: can you honestly continue believing in a theory that so obviously contradicts reality?

I thought the headlight thing was pretty valid. I've personally witnessed it myself on the highway plenty of different times.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Rama Set on June 15, 2016, 08:04:56 PM
This thread has gotten a bit off topic in arguing about Lighthouse brightness.

At this point, I think it is safe to say that Tom Bishop has absolutely no evidence to support his absurd theory that "lights stay the same apparent size as they get farther away".

Tom Bishop: If you have actual evidence, now is the time to show it! (please actually take the time to do some measuring before you post more videos that contradict your theory)

Other flat earthers: Does ANYONE have another theory as to why the sun doesn't get smaller as it gets farther away from us? If not, ask yourself: can you honestly continue believing in a theory that so obviously contradicts reality?

I thought the headlight thing was pretty valid. I've personally witnessed it myself on the highway plenty of different times.

Even though the headlights in the background were measured to be 1/4 the diameter of the lights in the foreground?

Here is a video of train lights that get bigger then smaller again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIztWrsDtBw

Here is train whose headlight gradually gets bigger:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kbse2
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: Venus on June 18, 2016, 10:35:16 AM

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

And what intensity would that be Tom ? Do you have an exact figure? Calculations?

All good to just throw out statements which purportedly support your argument ... but unless you can back this statement up with some figures it is totally irrelevant  :-B
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: geckothegeek on June 18, 2016, 03:27:05 PM

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

And what intensity would that be Tom ? Do you have an exact figure? Calculations?

All good to just throw out statements which purportedly support your argument ... but unless you can back this statement up with some figures it is totally irrelevant  :-B

I don't think I'm totaly alone, but I think most of Tom Bishop's posts are totaly irrelevant. LOL.
Title: Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"
Post by: geckothegeek on June 18, 2016, 03:30:02 PM

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

And what intensity would that be Tom ? Do you have an exact figure? Calculations?

All good to just throw out statements which purportedly support your argument ... but unless you can back this statement up with some figures it is totally irrelevant  :-B

I don't think I am totaly alone in my thinking , but I am thinkimg that most of Tom Bishop's posts are totaly irrelevant. LOL.