[totallackey]

I see no-one has responded to my question, (above, re local sun) which makes me wonder if it’s because I’ve raised one of those questions that is kinda unanswerable without exposing a deep flaw in the FE argument, or because I didn’t articulate it very well?

To repeat a little more clearly and concisely if I can: A local sun beaming down in a lamp-like fashion would light tall objects from the bottom to the top as it approaches them, not top to bottom, e.g. mountains, tall buildings etc. What we experience is top to bottom. As this video shows:



Also, we have all seen the undersides of clouds lit by the setting sun. Only possible on a globe.

Any thoughts?

Warm wishes and God bless.

Yeah, your claim the underside of clouds can only be lit by the setting sun only made possible by a globe is total malarkey.

Sunlight is certainly capable of reflecting off all surfaces of the earth.

You can get sunburn or suffer blindness from the sun being reflected off of water or snow.

[manicminer]

Snow is a very good reflector of UV light (the cause of sunburn) on account of it being white but less than 10% of any incident UV light on water is reflected so that would have a much less significant effect.

[Bishthebosh]

Yeah, your claim the underside of clouds can only be lit by the setting sun only made possible by a globe is total malarkey.

Sunlight is certainly capable of reflecting off all surfaces of the earth.

You can get sunburn or suffer blindness from the sun being reflected off of water or snow.
[/quote]

Hmm, certainly water, ice etc will reflect light, but won’t illuminate the underside of clouds; not to the degree that will illuminate clouds in the way we see when the sun is setting.

There’s also the issue of the colours at sunset/sunrise. The colours we see are due to the angle of the light passing through atmosphere.

Here’s a good example of the sun very obviously below the clouds due to Earth’s curvature.




Warm regards.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

There has already been a thread discussing the sun lighting the underside of the clouds and Mt. Rainier throwing a shadow on the bottom of the clouds.  The thread is 3 years old with no FE response to the last post of the Mt. Rainier photo.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5286.0

[totallackey]

Yeah, your claim the underside of clouds can only be lit by the setting sun only made possible by a globe is total malarkey.

Sunlight is certainly capable of reflecting off all surfaces of the earth.

You can get sunburn or suffer blindness from the sun being reflected off of water or snow.

Hmm, certainly water, ice etc will reflect light, but won’t illuminate the underside of clouds; not to the degree that will illuminate clouds in the way we see when the sun is setting.

Wrong.

Even city lights have the effect of illuminating the underside of clouds.

You really just need to put whatever you are using back in your bag and take time off from posting.

There’s also the issue of the colours at sunset/sunrise. The colours we see are due to the angle of the light passing through atmosphere.

Here’s a good example of the sun very obviously below the clouds due to Earth’s curvature.




Warm regards.

Sunlight will always pass through the atmoplane.

And the sun will never be obscured by the clouds unless you are higher than the clouds and the sun is far away.

If I stand on the beach I am taller than the water below me. Whitecaps on the water can still obsure my vision of far away objects.

[AATW]

If I stand on the beach I am taller than the water below me. Whitecaps on the water can still obsure my vision of far away objects.

Not if you're higher than the whitecaps.
An obstacle can only obscure more of an object beyond it than its own height if your eye level is below the height of the top of the obstacle.
Three scenarios shown below.
Top, your eye is below the level of the obstacle, more of the elephant than the obstacle's height is obscured.
Middle, your eye is level with the top of the obstacle, the same amount of elephant as the obstacle's height is obscured
Bottom, your eye is higher than the obstacle, less of the elephant than the obstacle's height is obscured:



That's the theory, here's my real life experiment demonstrating this:
Here's the set up:


Here's the 3 scenarios:

[WellRoundedIndividual]

The context of this is getting shifted.  The context is the sun. If the sun, in the FE model, is rotating at a constant 3000 miles above the earth's surface, it cannot by direct exposure light the underside of clouds. Reflections off of something, yes, can light the underside of clouds.  But reflections off of water or other surface will not cast a shadow of Mt. Rainier on the underside of clouds.  This is only possible if the sun rises and sets, as in the RE model.

[AATW]

The context of this is getting shifted.  The context is the sun. If the sun, in the FE model, is rotating at a constant 3000 miles above the earth's surface, it cannot by direct exposure light the underside of clouds. Reflections off of something, yes, can light the underside of clouds.  But reflections off of water or other surface will not cast a shadow of Mt. Rainier on the underside of clouds.  This is only possible if the sun rises and sets, as in the RE model.

One FE response is "perspective". From the Wiki:

In a long row of lamps, the second, supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series, will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer. This explains how the sun descends into the horizon as it recedes.

So the idea is that the horizon ascends to eye level and the sun descends to eye level and thus they merge.
This doesn't work as an explanation though, you can calculate distance at which the 3,000 mile supposed gap between the earth and sun would be difficult to distinguish and it's far further than the known distances on earth. If the earth was going over us at a fixed height then we'd see a change in size during the day, there would be a change in angular velocity and none of this is observed.

An important point I've been meaning to mention - objects below eye level remain below eye level no matter the distance, objects above eye level remain above eye level no matter the distance.
It's possible that they can become hard to distinguish but you can't get a sun slowly setting below the horizon by perspective.

EA works better as an explanation.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Correct, perspective would explain on a flat earth the apparent setting of the sun. But perspective, no matter what, will not cast a shadow of a mountain on the underside of a cloud. It is physically impossible unless the sun ACTUALLY is lower than the clouds.

[AATW]

Correct, perspective would explain on a flat earth the apparent setting of the sun. But perspective, no matter what, will not cast a shadow of a mountain on the underside of a cloud. It is physically impossible unless the sun ACTUALLY is lower than the clouds.

Yes.

In this scenario:



The sun would appear to be below the level of the cloud because of your perspective. But the shadow of the cloud cast by the sun's light will be angled downwards because the sun is physically above the level of the cloud. Shadow angle depends on the physical relationship between the light source and the object which the shadow is cast of, not anyone's perspective.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

The highest clouds form at an altitude of 45,000ft.  The sun would have to be at or below 8.52 miles in altitude on a flat earth to cast a shadow of anything on the underside of a cloud.  Reflection of any type off of any natural surface will not provide a distinct shadow as shown in the Mt Rainier shadow photo.

[totallackey]

The context of this is getting shifted.  The context is the sun. If the sun, in the FE model, is rotating at a constant 3000 miles above the earth's surface, it cannot by direct exposure light the underside of clouds. Reflections off of something, yes, can light the underside of clouds.  But reflections off of water or other surface will not cast a shadow of Mt. Rainier on the underside of clouds.  This is only possible if the sun rises and sets, as in the RE model.

While I did not post on that particular thread, my point being that any light intense enough to burn your skin or cause blindness is certainly intense enough to cast shadows.

You statement that reflected light could not cast shadows is pure hoakum; disingenuous at best, and a purposeful lie at worst.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

You are again taking me out of context. I said casting a mountains shadow on the underside of a cloud. Stay focused.

And you obviously do not understand the mechanics of a sunburn. First off, it is UV rays that cause sunburn - which is a subset of the sun's rays.

Second, reflected light off any surface that is rough will cause a diffuse reflection, and therefore will not be the total sum of the direct rays.

A sunburn is therefore the reflected UV component + the direct UV component. 

Also, snowblindness does not mean going blind. It is a temporary symptom of UV light burning your cornea.

There is obviously a reason why lots of sunglasses have UV protection - due to the fact that your corneas are more susceptible to damage than your skin.


A reflected light may cast a shadow, but it has to be a very specific set of circumstances - which is what you FE'ers do - providing an extremely specific set of circumstances (or context) to prove a point.

Water and snow will not reflect enough visible light to cast a shadow. Just look up the reflection properties of both and you will know that they are much better at reflecting UV rays than the whole spectrum of light. You would basically need a mirror or piece of glass to reflect the sunlight to cast a shadow from Mt Rainier on to the above clouds. Anyone know of a piece of glass or mirror that big in the vicinity of Mt Rainier?

And interestingly enough - "It only happens when the sun rises farther to the south as we head toward the winter solstice and has to be in the exact position to where Rainier blocks the first rays of morning light."  If reflections were the cause of the shadow on the bottom side of the cloud, then it would happen at any time. Not just as the sun rises (RE) or appears through the atmoplane (FE).

[totallackey]

You are again taking me out of context. I said casting a mountains shadow on the underside of a cloud. Stay focused.

No.

I'm not.

And you obviously do not understand the mechanics of a sunburn. First off, it is UV rays that cause sunburn - which is a subset of the sun's rays.

Yeah, so what?

Second, reflected light off any surface that is rough will cause a diffuse reflection, and therefore will not be the total sum of the direct rays.

Reflected light can certainly be concentrated to specific points.

A sunburn is therefore the reflected UV component + the direct UV component.

No.

You could have a cover over your head and then sunlight reflected from below can still blind you or burn you.

Also, snowblindness does not mean going blind. It is a temporary symptom of UV light burning your cornea.

Who said fully blind?

Snowblindness means you cannot see for period of time.

Not being able to see means...

Your blind.

There is obviously a reason why lots of sunglasses have UV protection - due to the fact that your corneas are more susceptible to damage than your skin.

Thank you Copernicus.

A reflected light may cast a shadow, but it has to be a very specific set of circumstances - which is what you FE'ers do - providing an extremely specific set of circumstances (or context) to prove a point.

You mean a specific set of circumstances like a couple of pictures of the shadow of Rainier.

Gotcha.

Water and snow will not reflect enough visible light to cast a shadow.

Wrong.

"Water and glass not only reflect but also refract light. This means that as a light beam enters water or glass, the light bends." - https://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2001Feb.cfm

Just look up the reflection properties of both and you will know that they are much better at reflecting UV rays than the whole spectrum of light. You would basically need a mirror or piece of glass to reflect the sunlight to cast a shadow from Mt Rainier on to the above clouds. Anyone know of a piece of glass or mirror that big in the vicinity of Mt Rainier?

There does not need to be mirror.

Plenty of water and snow around Rainier to do the trick.

And interestingly enough - "It only happens when the sun rises farther to the south as we head toward the winter solstice and has to be in the exact position to where Rainier blocks the first rays of morning light."  If reflections were the cause of the shadow on the bottom side of the cloud, then it would happen at any time. Not just as the sun rises (RE) or appears through the atmoplane (FE).

Just pure hoakum again.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

From the same source you just quoted.

" When incident light hits a snowflake, some of the light is reflected off the crystal back towards the observer. However, most of the light penetrates the crystal and is bent, or refracted."

Yes, I totally understand that visible light does reflect off of objects or surfaces. Water and snow DOES NOT REFLECT 100% OF VISIBLE LIGHT! In the case of water, most of it is absorbed into the water - aka it continues traveling through the water at an angle defined by the refractive index. Refraction of light does not reverse the course of light. It enters the material at a certain angle and travels through the material at a different angle. Refraction has nothing to do with the angle at which light is reflected. That is my point.

And yes you are taking me out of context - you purposefully and misleadingly only quoted one sentence out of a paragraph that pertains specifically to Mt. Rainier's shadow. I never said that reflected light does not have the ability to cast shadows. I said reflected light does not have the ability to cast a DISTINCT SHADOW OF A MOUNTAIN ON THE UNDERSIDE OF CLOUDS. There is quite the difference in your generalization of my statement and my actual statement.

And to address the accusation that I am painting you into a corner on the context of Mt. Rainier. Completely false. I am presenting you with a phenomenon that is actually occurring. I am not giving you a set of parameters to confine your thinking, or a bunch of what if scenarios.

[stack]

Correct, perspective would explain on a flat earth the apparent setting of the sun. But perspective, no matter what, will not cast a shadow of a mountain on the underside of a cloud. It is physically impossible unless the sun ACTUALLY is lower than the clouds.

Yes.

In this scenario:



The sun would appear to be below the level of the cloud because of your perspective. But the shadow of the cloud cast by the sun's light will be angled downwards because the sun is physically above the level of the cloud. Shadow angle depends on the physical relationship between the light source and the object which the shadow is cast of, not anyone's perspective.

Correct, no matter how far away a 3000 mile high sun is, it will not break the plane so as to be able to cast upward underneath the clouds.



Same goes for this, no matter how far away a 3000 mile high sun is, it will not break the plane so as to be able to cast an upward shadow from a lower mountain to the top of the highest mountain on earth.

https://media.istockphoto.com/videos/mt-everest-at-sunset-video-id539252432

[Tom Bishop]

Prove that the perspective lines recede into infinity. I can equally draw a scene where the sun descends the eye line and the lands ascend to the eye line.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Prove that the perspective lines recede into infinity. I can equally draw a scene where the sun descends the eye line and the lands ascend to the eye line.

Perspective has absolutely nothing to do with it. The physical location and the geometry of each object is what counts. Perspective does not change the fact that a sun that is supposedly 3000 miles above the earth's supposed flat surface cannot throw a shadow with "direct sunlight" of a mountain on the underside of a cloud. Stop throwing red herrings in here.

[stack]

Prove that the perspective lines recede into infinity. I can equally draw a scene where the sun descends the eye line and the lands ascend to the eye line.

I don't need to, irrelevant. What's relevant is that no matter how far away a 3000 mile high sun is, it will not break the plane so as to be able to cast an upward shadow from a lower mountain to the top of the highest mountain on earth.

Why don't you draw a scene showing what you claim yet is not observed?

[Tom Bishop]

Perspective lines meeting is observed. Look at a long straight line of railroad scene. The tracks appear to meet to perspective. There is zero evidence for your infinitely receding perspective lines idea.