[Tom Bishop]

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."

[markjo]

[Rama Set]

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.

[TotesNotReptilian]

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.)

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)

[CableDawg]

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:

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. 

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Rama Set]

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...



Try again.

[TotesNotReptilian]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[CableDawg]

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?

[rabinoz]

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 » .

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.

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

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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...



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.

[Rama Set]

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:

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.

[rabinoz]

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.

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 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"!

[Tom Bishop]

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:

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.

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 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.

[Rama Set]

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:

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?

[Tom Bishop]

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:

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:

[Rama Set]

fascinating.  How is this relevant?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Rama Set]

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, 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.