[Oami]

Antithecystem: from your perspective, the sun illuminates things that are in the same general direction as you are. From someone else's perspective, it looks different.

Remember: the whole concept of you seeing things is that light waves hit your eyes. No matter how much the sun illuminates something elsewhere, if the light mostly scatters there to some other directions than towards you, then you won't see it.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Hi.
To better understand the perspective problem I drew this on my drawing package at work;



These are parallel lines, done by drawing one tube, and then creating a grid of 8x8, (the pink circles were/will be clouds to show how the crepuscular rays work but they aren't finished as I was supposed to be working).
However the perspective is still obvious, if you look at the lower left image you can just see a yellow dot at the foot of the lines in the middle, that is the cylinder in the perspective view (top right), and here you see from down there, all the lines seem to radiate outwards, it's a perspective illusion.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

For a full understanding of what you are seeing I recomend "Atmospheric optics" http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm an excelent site that should be able to give you what you need to understand the sky and give you some astounding photos.

[Antithecystem]

And what about both the moon and the sun's light appearing localized, does anyone have an answer for that?

Rounder told you above it was due to Crepuscular Rays. An optical illusion, similar to what makes parallel railway lines appear to converge in the distance.

That's not what I'm referring to right now, why does both the sun and moon primarily illuminate the clouds and landscape appearing to surround them?
Where the sun and moon appear in the sky is also due to perspective, since they're so big/far, they're hardly anymore where they appear to be than where they don't appear to be.
If the sun and moon are as big as they say, and as far as they say, they should be illuminating everything evenly.

Furthermore, why don't the rays come from every part of the sky, I'm not talking about how the rays diverge, that in some, not all, but at least in some cases can be attributed to perspective, but how come all the rays come from where the sun appears to be in the sky, the rays should be coming from every point in the sky, regardless of whether they're appearing to diverge due to perspective or not.

I don't understand what you're talking about in the first bit here? Are you asking why the sun/moon appears to illuminate things directly between it and you brighter than anything else in the sky? Because I don't think that's a thing other than in some of the specific cases you are showing where they're illuminating through a hole in the clouds. Everything *is* being illuminated evenly, but the clouds in the sky are blocking some of it. Ever gone out on a clear moonlit night during a full moon? Everything is bathed evenly.

Why would the rays appear to come from the entire sky? The sun isn't that close to us. Take a normal light. Turn it on. Look at it. It takes up much more of your vision standing 2 feet from it than standing 20 feet from it. Same idea, the distances involved are simply much greater.

Not everything is illuminated evenly.
It's not just a case of the clouds being thick in some places and thin in others, the sun/moon always especially illuminate the clouds/landscape around them, which's odd, because the sun/moon aren't suppose to be nearer to the clouds/landscape they appear to be nearer to from your vantage point, they and their rays are suppose to be huge, and evenly everywhere.
Now it's probably an optical illusion/perspective I suppose...still odd, and so far no one has been able to explain to me how it works (I posed this same query on the other flat earth forum, and both round, and flat earthers ignored it).

[Antithecystem]

Antithecystem: from your perspective, the sun illuminates things that are in the same general direction as you are. From someone else's perspective, it looks different.

Remember: the whole concept of you seeing things is that light waves hit your eyes. No matter how much the sun illuminates something elsewhere, if the light mostly scatters there to some other directions than towards you, then you won't see it.

That's probably the case, however, I wonder if that's true of other forms of light.
Like if you were to place some semitransparent objects around a lantern, would the ones in between you and the lantern appear more lit up than other objects, which're just as close to the lantern as the ones in between the lantern and your line of sight?

[Oami]

That's probably the case, however, I wonder if that's true of other forms of light.
Like if you were to place some semitransparent objects around a lantern, would the ones in between you and the lantern appear more lit up than other objects, which're just as close to the lantern as the ones in between the lantern and your line of sight?

Like this? http://d3d71ba2asa5oz.cloudfront.net/22001044/images/sky1428lrg-2.jpg

Yes, the part of paper that is towards the photographer looks brighter than those parts that are more towards the sides (or that part that is behind the flame, which we can forget when talking about the sun).

[Antithecystem]

That's probably the case, however, I wonder if that's true of other forms of light.
Like if you were to place some semitransparent objects around a lantern, would the ones in between you and the lantern appear more lit up than other objects, which're just as close to the lantern as the ones in between the lantern and your line of sight?

Like this? http://d3d71ba2asa5oz.cloudfront.net/22001044/images/sky1428lrg-2.jpg

Yes, the part of paper that is towards the photographer looks brighter than those parts that are more towards the sides (or that part that is behind the flame, which we can forget when talking about the sun).

I think you're right, and this image helps prove it.
That being said, I'm going to look at some more images online and do some experiments for myself just to be sure.

[3DGeek]

That's probably the case, however, I wonder if that's true of other forms of light.
Like if you were to place some semitransparent objects around a lantern, would the ones in between you and the lantern appear more lit up than other objects, which're just as close to the lantern as the ones in between the lantern and your line of sight?

Like this? http://d3d71ba2asa5oz.cloudfront.net/22001044/images/sky1428lrg-2.jpg

Yes, the part of paper that is towards the photographer looks brighter than those parts that are more towards the sides (or that part that is behind the flame, which we can forget when talking about the sun).

All of the light that hits an object ends up with one of three fates:

* It may be absorbed and turn into heat.
* It may be reflected.
* It may pass through the object and out the other side.

...and for almost all objects, it's a mixture of those three things.

In the case of those lanterns, we have a material that transmits light fairly well, but reflects it quite poorly...like glass, for example.

So the paper that's between us and the lamp is bright (because the lamp light is passing right through it) and the paper that's on the far side of the light is darker (because the light is passing right through it, and not much is being reflected by it).

Hence the paper on the far side looks darker.

No mystery.

[Hmmm]

 Antithecystem, have you seen such moon/sun videos?

[Curious Squirrel]

Antithecystem, have you seen such moon/sun videos?

Moon video is about a fake news article. Sun video lies in it's own description. Not to mention he says nothing about the 3rd object easily seen that points to it being a reflection of some kind. Could you please elaborate what you are trying to say with posting these two videos?

[TomInAustin]

And what about both the moon and the sun's light appearing localized, does anyone have an answer for that?

Rounder told you above it was due to Crepuscular Rays. An optical illusion, similar to what makes parallel railway lines appear to converge in the distance.

That's not what I'm referring to right now, why does both the sun and moon primarily illuminate the clouds and landscape appearing to surround them?
Where the sun and moon appear in the sky is also due to perspective, since they're so big/far, they're hardly anymore where they appear to be than where they don't appear to be.
If the sun and moon are as big as they say, and as far as they say, they should be illuminating everything evenly.

Furthermore, why don't the rays come from every part of the sky, I'm not talking about how the rays diverge, that in some, not all, but at least in some cases can be attributed to perspective, but how come all the rays come from where the sun appears to be in the sky, the rays should be coming from every point in the sky, regardless of whether they're appearing to diverge due to perspective or not.

To a minor degree, they do as the light is scattered by the atmosphere but the majority of the rays are extremely close to parallel.  Do some reading on coherent light rays.  The sun is our best source of coherent light.  A well-tuned laser is pretty close as well.

[JoeTheToe]

Here's some more images:

These are called Crepuscular rays. They appear to converge at some point in the sky, for the same reason that the parallel lines of a roadway seem to converge in the distance. How this stumps FE'ers, I'll never understand. It appears this also seems to stump some RE'ers.

If you are using the argument that crepuscular rays prove a close sun, then you must also somehow explain Anticrepuscular rays within the same framework. (Do a google search.)

[3DGeek]

Here's some more images:

These are called Crepuscular rays. They appear to converge at some point in the sky, for the same reason that the parallel lines of a roadway seem to converge in the distance. How this stumps FE'ers, I'll never understand. It appears this also seems to stump some RE'ers.

If you are using the argument that crepuscular rays prove a close sun, then you must also somehow explain Anticrepuscular rays within the same framework. (Do a google search.)

Actually, I was fooled by the crepuscular rays thing - and I even made a post based around my misunderstanding!

The illusion that they are fanning outwards from a point right above the clouds is visually quite compelling.

Even now (although I know this to be the correct answer) it's hard to adjust my brain to the fact that the gap in the clouds is WAY off in the distance and not almost overhead.   The fact of the divergence being due to perspective is hard to convince your eyes about!

But yes - when you look at the actual situation - for sure that's what it is.

[JoeTheToe]

Here's some more images:

These are called Crepuscular rays. They appear to converge at some point in the sky, for the same reason that the parallel lines of a roadway seem to converge in the distance. How this stumps FE'ers, I'll never understand. It appears this also seems to stump some RE'ers.

If you are using the argument that crepuscular rays prove a close sun, then you must also somehow explain Anticrepuscular rays within the same framework. (Do a google search.)

Actually, I was fooled by the crepuscular rays thing - and I even made a post based around my misunderstanding!

The illusion that they are fanning outwards from a point right above the clouds is visually quite compelling.

Even now (although I know this to be the correct answer) it's hard to adjust my brain to the fact that the gap in the clouds is WAY off in the distance and not almost overhead.   The fact of the divergence being due to perspective is hard to convince your eyes about!

But yes - when you look at the actual situation - for sure that's what it is.

Well you don't see FE'ers admitting to cognitive or perceptual mistakes. EVER. At least, I haven't ever seen it. So, huge kudos!

I have a hypothesis, and I know this could come off as insulting to you personally, so please understand that I don't mean it that way at all. It's about people who believe the Flat Earth Conjecture. My hypothesis is this:

People that spend a good deal of time outdoors, in varied environments, intuitively understand the basic geometry and physics of many natural phenomenon that apparently stump FE'ers - things like crepuscular rays. For reasons (in this just one example) such as:

• They see a significantly wider field of view, than people looking at the same thing from home in photos on their computer screen.
• They see in significantly higher detail than photos on a screen.
• They see significantly higher dynamic range and vividness, than photos on a screen.
• They see in three-dimensions; not just stereoscopy, but the ability (and natural inevitability) of moving your whole head (and body) over significant distances, to build a rich, deeply 3D model of the world around them.
• They see things evolve over time - such as crepuscular rays shifting with the clouds
• They see the "whole picture", such as crepuscular rays facing toward the sun, anticrepuscular facing away (near sunrise and sunset and/or at elevation)
• They see crepuscular rays turn into anticrepuscular as the day wears on (or in reverse as the day begins)
• Not necessarily having to do with outdoorsiness, but they like to travel
• They are curious on every flight (like me), no matter how many hundreds they've taken, always get the window seat facing away from the sun and ideally ahead of the wing (which they specifically think about while booking), try to schedule for a landing near the "magic hour", hope for a final approach around building thunderheads, and are always ready with some decent camera for an amazing photo opportunity (again usually on the long, low final approach). Either way, looking out the window for much of each and every flight, they see anticrepuscular rays all the live long day. At a deep, internal level, there is no mystery at all about the practical parallelness of light's rays from the sun.
• They've seen - and really taken in - hundreds if not thousands of sunsets under highly varied conditions - such as from beaches, from boats at sea, from mountains, from the Great Lakes, from inland seas, from big lakes like Lake Tahoe and Crater Lake, from deserts, salt flats, from airplaines, from skyscrapers, from the Grand Canyon, from the Rockies, the Sierras, the Appalachians, the Cascades, Swiss and German Alps, etc.
• They've taken long-haul flights to every major continent plus Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, etc.

These are just a few reasons why outdoorsy (and/or travel-ey) people - mixed with a high amount of curiosity about the world - may be able to better intuitively "grasp" just one phenomenon (among myriad others) that seems to stump FE'ers. And adds to my suspicion that Flat Earthers:

• Are utterly incurious
• As a result probably lead unadventurous lives (though possibly perfectly full of love and laughter)
• Are not well-traveled or if so, utterly incurious about it
• Do not have great spatial awareness/intelligence
• May not have much experience with other people and cultures
• Are highly gullible people prone to magical thinking
• Are more paranoid than average and prone to believing that powerful hidden forces dictate every facet of their lives
• May be on the lower end of the IQ spectrum

I'm having a hard time imaginging how anyone who has really taken in as much as the world has to offer, with gusto, bravery, and high curiosity - outside, without computer screens - could possibly believe the Earth is flat. Seems to me like the people who believe that are stuck inside watching Youtube videos, forming elaborate, ad-hoc mental models of the world, stewing away with growing anger over the grand conspiracy, and falling deeper down the rabbit hole of cognitive biases and logical fallacies, and building a wholly fictional "model" that is completely unworkable in any logical or rational way, but that they convince themselves - over days, weeks, months, years...decades (Tom), that is the only possible way the universe could and does work. They don't get out much. Maybe they have social anxiety and/or poor health, and/or are just utterly incurious about things outside their walls, and/or unmotivated to go explore. Maybe they feel beat down by the world, powerless, and a grand conspiracy helps them feel like it's not their fault. Who knows.

I mean, don't get me wrong, FE'ers. I'd absolutely flip out with joy, if the Earth were actually flat. What a brain-f***! How cool would it be to have a lifetime of an ever-evolving, ever-refining mental model, supported by everything I've ever done and observed - all of my uncountable journeys - turned on it's head? Either way, I must admit it is really fun to think and fantasize about. If I were a writer, I'd make it the basis of a whole adventure novel series. And who wouldn't want to venture out onto an infinite ice shelf that grows increasingly more hostile, and set a record for how far you can make it? Or to watch as mankind keeps pushing that boundary, generation after generation? Maybe one day we'd find that the infinite plane isn't infinite after all, and a whole 'nother world exists 100,000 miles away? 1,000,000 miles away? Maybe infinite worlds on the infinite plane (assuming Rowbotham's intriguing model), with their own alien species, and atmospheres? Who wouldn't want to try to build a rocket to reach a planet just 3,000 miles up, and see how it works and what it's made of? All of that sounds absolutely awesome. I wish it were true.