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
Where have you proved that glare is not a magnification of the light source?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
QuoteAnd, 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.
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)
Why aren't any of your glowy balls appearing cutoff by a sharp line as they fade?
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.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)
(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 |
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
How small should they be? Your analysis seems woefully incomplete.
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!
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."
They certainly should not be the same size down the entirety of the highway.
The effects I've shown directly contradict the statement of the OP: "Stuff appears smaller with distance. This is common knowledge."
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)
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.
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBTFunny 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...
Try again.
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.
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBTFunny 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.
(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 |
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBTFunny 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.
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.
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.
(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 |
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.phpModern 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.
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.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.
(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
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 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.phpModern 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.
It is possible, but it is not reality:Quote from: http://www.lighthousepreservation.org/beacons.phpModern 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?
fascinating. How is this relevant?
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.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.
(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 |
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.
The moon stays essentially the same size from the moon rising to setting, and I cannot see how that can be attributed to "glare"!
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)
And your magic glare magnification keeps the moon's size to that predicted by the Globe model, while preserving the features perfectly!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.
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBTFunny 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.
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.
(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 |
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBTFunny 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.
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.
The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see.
QuotePlease 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.
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.
(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.
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
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
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.
QuoteIt 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.
It supports the theory. Those headlights are pretty consistent.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.
QuoteQuoteIt 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 shrinkingNo 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.
Quote2. 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.
QuoteNone 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.
I see details. Those headlights in the last image aren't perfect circles. They have detail to them.
(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 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.
"Pretty consistent"? Consistently what? They consistently get smaller with distance. This is the opposite of what your theory predicts.
Those aren't the details we are talking about and you know it. With the sun and moon, we can see distinct interior details.
"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.
QuoteThose 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.
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?
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.
As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.
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
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.