[TotesNotReptilian]

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

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 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 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.

[Tom Bishop]

Where have you proved that glare is not a magnification of the light source?

[TotesNotReptilian]

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:

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[TotesNotReptilian]

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.)

[rabinoz]

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.

[Rounder]

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!

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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, 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.

[TotesNotReptilian]

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.

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. Their size and shape is determined by the size and shape of the camera aperture, and the focal length. The spots are round in the above image because the aperture of the camera is round.

[Rama Set]

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.

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.

[TotesNotReptilian]

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.

[CableDawg]

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.

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.

[rabinoz]

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 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.

20160524 19:36 - Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.516° at - 1600mm

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.

[markjo]

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:

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

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:

[Rama Set]

How small should they be?  Your analysis seems woefully incomplete.

[Rounder]

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!

[andruszkow]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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: