The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Tontogary on April 13, 2018, 10:00:27 AM
-
OK lets explore this one shall we?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm
Tries to suggest that the sun is bigger when rising and setting than at noonday.
Let me show you why that statement is in error. It is the same size.
Today, 13th April 2018 my vessels position was about 15 degrees North lattitude, and the suns declination was about 9 degrees north, meaning that at noon time the sun was very high in the sky, over 80 apparent altitude.
I measured, with a sextant the diameter of the sun, placing the upper limb onto the lower limb and vica versa. This is a way we use to measure any instrument error, but can also be cross checked with the semi diameter of the sun on any given day.
The readings i obtained were 31.0’ off the arc, and 33.0’ on the arc.
Now this told me 2 things, that my sextant has a slight permanent correction to be applied when taking sights, but also that 2 diameters of the sun add up to 1 degree and 4 minutes.
From the nautical almanac it is seen that todays semi diameter of the sun is 16.0’
Therefore my calculations can be verified, as i measured 2 diameters, and obtained 64’ then taking the semi diameter of the sun multiplied by 4 gives me the same measurement that i took, meaning my method, and calculation, as well as my observation was correct.
Later this afternoon i took another set of observations, and got identical readings, this time with the apparent altitude at 45degrees, at about 15:00.
Finally i took another reading at 16:50 or thereabouts and had exactly the same readings, 31.0’ off the arc, and 33.0’ on the arc.
All three observations show that the suns diameter remained the same, and did not change. I am guessing this rebuts Enag Chapter x?
-
OK lets explore this one shall we?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm
Tries to suggest that the sun is bigger when rising and setting than at noonday.
This is another "Rowbotham". He's very good at omitting valuable facts, that would counter his conclusions.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig66.jpg)
He says, that the observer (right under position 8 ), will not directly see the sun, but a projection of the sun on an atmospheric plane A to B. Yes the projection at 6 is obviously larger, than the one at 8.
But (omitted fact): The observer is watching projection 6 with an significant angle, whereas the observer is looking perpendicular to projection at position 8. So the observer will see projection 8 "as is", but will see projection 6 with a heavy distortion, which will compensate for the initial projection at plane A to B, else he would see an ellipse and not a circular disk.
Summary: Utter nonsense!
-
There is an effect in the far field which enlarges light. Take a look at the examples here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
-
Yeah no, that's not a real thing. For starters the stoplights in the bottom picture on that page do get smaller as they get further away. The headlights in the car picture are unusable for this point because they get so close together in the picture they overlap.
for real information, try here (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate)
-
Yeah no, that's not a real thing. For starters the stoplights in the bottom picture on that page do get smaller as they get further away.
They get a little smaller when compared to the foreground, but the lamp lights in the far field distance are all the same size.
Read the text below the image:
Note: The lamps closest to the observer in the above image are slightly larger than the lamps in the distance, this is true. Lights very near to you are going to look bigger if they are also angled more directly at you, or because their light source is physically bigger than the projection it is casting. A streetlight which is located at a distance of one centimeter from your eyeball will, of course, look bigger than a streetlight in the distance. Very close lights being bigger is not a contradiction. In these discussions we are primarily concerned with very distant lights in the far field. We can see that the very distant lights in that scene are not consistently shrinking, despite being as spaced out from each other as the nearest lights are. The shrinking seems to slow significantly as the distance increases, opposite of what one would expect. The most distant lights should be small specks, but instead appear relatively consistent in size with the other streetlights in the far field. This is evidence of a magnification effect.
It is an effect that occurs in the far field. The far field lights are not appropriately shrinking in that image.
The headlights in the car picture are unusable for this point because they get so close together in the picture they overlap.
The headlights should be small specks of light. They are not. The fact that they "overlap," as you admit, is evidence of a magnification effect.
-
that is in part an effect of the focus and exposure settings in the cameras. see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh). it isn't magnification at all, it's diffusion
in the lamplights, you can see that the principal orbs do get smaller at a consistent rate. with the headlights, I think you actually start running into resolution problems. the camera feed is quantizing pixels to high brightness because there is a headlight somewhere in that area. again, it's not a usable example
also, again, since we've gone over this before: If Rowbotham were right and the sun were magnified by the atmosphere, it would also get more diffuse. it does not. therefore, he is wrong.
-
that is in part an effect of the focus and exposure settings in the cameras. see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh). it isn't magnification at all, it's diffusion
If this explanation were true then we should expect the backgrounds to be out of focus, like in this image of the little girl in that article:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Josefina_with_Bokeh.jpg)
However, the backgrounds in the images are NOT out of focus. The first highway headlight image has morning fog in the background, but we can clearly see that the streetlight photo (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/4a/Streets_at_night.jpg) and in the video headlight example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaPFBgGpdVU) that the background are not out of focus. We can clearly see detail on the buildings and other elements in the scene. They are not blurred out like in the little girl photo. The background is not diffused.
-
Distant headlights are not magnified in the video example. note how reflective the road is
The streetlights get smaller in proportion to their distance. The furthest aura is about half the size of the nearest one. The principal orb is even smaller.
The headlights are a resolution problem.
there is no magnification effect
-
Distant headlights are not magnified in the video example. note how reflective the road is
The headlight are overlapping and seem bigger than the cars they are on. When the cars get closer the headlights appear at a more appropriate size in comparison to the car.
The streetlights get smaller in proportion to their distance. The furthest aura is about half the size of the nearest one. The principal orb is even smaller.
Are you even reading the article? It says that it is an effect that occers in the FAR FIELD.
The fact that you can put one of those lights one centimeter away from your eyeball and make it bigger than everything else is not a disproof of the fact that the lights in the far field are not consistently shrinking as they should. Your critique that the near field lights are larger is not addressing the fact that the far field lights do not shrink appropriately and are relatively consistent in size.
-
Which part of the picture is the far field? Is it the lights that are tiny pinpricks way back behind the overpass? that have, in fact, shrunk in size consistently, as they should?
Or is it the lights that are at the back of the row, but still in front of the overpass? that are smaller than the closest light, by a significant factor?
hmm
I don't think this picture shows what you want it to, George
the headlights image shows low resolution and the effects of quantization (http://www.sci.utah.edu/~arpaiva/classes/UT_ece6962/image_representation_and_discretization.pdf)
we're repeating ourselves, and you've started hitting up all caps. I'm out
-
Which part of the picture is the far field? Is it the lights that are tiny pinpricks way back behind the overpass? that have, in fact, shrunk in size consistently, as they should?
If you are talking about some of the tiny pin pricks in the scene, then I must again point back to the tfes.org wiki article. The wiki article describes that only light sources of a certain intensity magnifies. The first example in the article shows that the head lights on the incoming lane are bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere, while and the tail lights on the outgoing are not bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere and appropriately shrink.
That you can find a light in a picture that is a tiny pinprick, as it appropriately should be, is not a disproof. Not all light magnifies. If all light magnified then everything in the background would be magnified.
-
Okay, I'm again going back on a thread departure. I guess I will stop saying I'm out
The lights in the far field are the same intensity as the closer lights. I mean to say, they're all streetlights. If the streetlights are not intense enough for magnification to occur, what's the point of the picture? Why would close streetlights exhibit magnification but not distant streetlights?
And, if magnification only occurs in the far field, why are the headlights on the car in the foreground so much huger than their actual size? There must be something else doing it, right? So that same something else is making distant lights look bigger than their light source- bigger than the bulb itself, but still decreasing in size with proportion to distance.
I keep saying the freeway picture is irrelevant, you keep ignoring that point. Get focused homie
-
The wiki article describes that only light sources of a certain intensity magnifies.
Sorry, not possible—light is a wave, and its amplitude has no effect on the geometry of the wavefront. The only thing affecting it is the wavelength; that's what makes rainbows appear.
-
The lights in the far field are the same intensity as the closer lights. I mean to say, they're all streetlights. If the streetlights are not intense enough for magnification to occur, what's the point of the picture? Why would close streetlights exhibit magnification but not distant streetlights?
I think you mean to ask why far streetlights would exhibit magnification but not close ones. The answer relates to the mechanism that causes this -- the atmosphere. It is evident that the light from far streetlights must travel through more atmosphere than near streetlights.
And, if magnification only occurs in the far field, why are the headlights on the car in the foreground so much huger than their actual size? There must be something else doing it, right? So that same something else is making distant lights look bigger than their light source- bigger than the bulb itself, but still decreasing in size with proportion to distance.
I'm not sure what you are asking or suggesting here. The magnification is seen to occur with intense lights in the far field.
The wiki article describes that only light sources of a certain intensity magnifies.
Sorry, not possible—light is a wave, and its amplitude has no effect on the geometry of the wavefront. The only thing affecting it is the wavelength; that's what makes rainbows appear.
Atmosphere does have an effect on photons. Have you ever seen bright headlights in fog? It projects its light on the fog, lighting it up, appearing as a large splotch of light to external observers. It projected its bright lights upon the foggy atmosphere.
-
No, that's not what I meant to ask.
I wrote: "Which part of the picture is the far field? Is it the lights that are tiny pinpricks way back behind the overpass? that have, in fact, shrunk in size consistently, as they should?"
You wrote: "The wiki article describes that only light sources of a certain intensity magnifies."
I wrote: "The lights in the far field are the same intensity as the closer lights. I mean to say, they're all streetlights. If the streetlights are not intense enough for magnification to occur, what's the point of the picture? Why would close streetlights exhibit magnification but not distant streetlights?"
I mean, that last bit is literally, 'why A and not B,' and you've repeated it back as 'I think you're asking, why B and not A.' embarrassing for both of us
Here is a picture to clarify.
(https://i.imgur.com/20UJCZk.jpg)
The point is that those tiny pins in the background are also streetlights. The premise of the picture is that it shows magnification of distant light sources. However, those streetlights in the far distance are just as you said, tiny pinpricks. No magnification of the light source is seen.
also
9/10 has correctly pointed out that the only variable that matters with photons is frequency. A light source might radiate lots of photons, or few, but the amplitude of an individual photon does not affect its interaction with the atmosphere. From a physics point of view, there is no sensible way to describe Rowbotham's atmospheric magnification, without allowing for other effects such as diffusion.
-
Are we talking about lights, or about their glare in camera?
BTW, speaking of Sun's speed along the sky path:
same intervals appear shorter in the distance, when observed under sharper angles.
(http://aemstatic-ww1.azureedge.net/content/leds/en/ugc/iif/2014/05/28/zhuhai-doumen-district-intelligent-led-street-light-retrofit-is-latest-to-claim-smart-city-green-cit/_jcr_content/leftcolumn/article/headerimage.scale.large.jpg/1401312186117.jpg) (http://newafricabusinessnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/street-300x262.jpg)
(https://crsite-groupafrica.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/solar-street.jpg) (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/thumb/msid-53429615,width-400,resizemode-4/53429615.jpg)
-
Finding an example of lights which do get smaller in distance is not a disproof. Recall that the wiki says that it only happens to lights of a certain intensity. We don't know how bright those lights are in those examples.
If you look at those lights carefully, the far field lights are appropriately shrinking to small pinpricks. The lights in the street light example in the wiki do not shrink to pinpricks.
Other pinprick light may be found in the background of the streetlight photo, the headlights photo, and headlight video from the examples in the wiki, but that is not a disproof since we don't know how intense those are.
-
I tried to find a definitive answer for the distance and dimensions of the sun to be able to ensure i get the maths right below, but it was very difficult.
I searched the threads, and Q&A section, as well as referred to Enag, and the below is what i get,
Distance from the earth is either 700 miles from Enag, or 3,000 miles from Wiki. I took 3000 from the wiki.
Suns diameter is quoted in various places and i have seen 27 and 31 miles.
Form is very difficult. EnaG diagrams show it as a globe, in chapter X, but others refer to it as a flashlight, or projection. To start with i will deal with it as a flashlight.
I have measured and observed the sun with a sextant I’ve the last 2 days, taking the observations at over 80 degrees altitude, 45 degrees and about 12 degrees. Each time i measured it, and it was spherical and EXACTLY the same diameter, using a sextant, which measures to the nearest 2/10th of a minute of arc.
Now if it was a flashlight projecting a circle of light down, it would appear circular when right overhead, but at an angle it will appear oblate.
I took a couple of pictures from my office that has a spotlight down light, and took one at about 45 degrees angle to the horizontal and one at about 25 degrees. It can clearly be seen that the oblate shape is more pronounced. It is visible at 45 degrees as well, but in real life the sun is observed to be perfectly round even down to 10 degrees altitude.
I can only therefore discount the sun being a flashlight or focussed beam.
-
From my above post, I will take the suns form as round, and explore the maths involved.
If the sun is 3000 miles above the plane earth, then when the observers lattitude is at about the same declination as the sun the sun will be overhead, or if on the equator about march 21st it will be overhead.
When i took my observations yesterday, i measured the suns diameter as 32 minutes of an arc. Or 0.53333333333333 of a degree.
If the suns half diameter was 16 minutes of the arc, (0.266666) then simple trig will give us the diameter.
Sorry, i am using an iPad, and i am no good at diagrams, but it is easy enough to follow;
The angle i measured was 16 minutes of arc for half the diameter, with the suns distance being the adjacent side and half the diameter being opposite, so
Tangent 0.266666666 multiplied by the distance will give half the diameter, which works out as 13.96 miles or a diameter of 27.92miles, so lets say 28 miles for round figures.
Now that works for noonday if the sun is 3000 miles away and 28 miles in diameter, all fits well so far. I am taking them to be statute miles, even though nautical miles would be easier to calculate.
Now retaking the sun at intervals uses plane trigonometry if the earth is a plane.
Where at noon, the position of the sun over the earth was the same as mine, more or less, there was no horizontal distance separating us, but there will be later. (Suns position over the earth relative to the observer is is referred to as Local Hour angle, and declination)
Next at about 15:00 lt i retook the suns diameter and it had not changed., however its distance from me had changed.
It’s lattitude (declination) had not changed much, but in 3 hours it had travelled 3 x 15 = 45 degrees, as it is not disputed that the sun travels 360 degrees in 24 hours.
Therefore the sun was 45 degrees of longitude horizontally away from me, and 3,000 miles vertically above me.
The 45 degrees of longitude at 15 degrees north is equal to 2700 minutes of longitude, multiplied by Cos 15 to get nautical miles. Which is 2608 (rounded up) converted to statute miles is 3,000 miles. (Coincidentally)
Now using Pythagoras the hypotenuse (straight line distance) is the square root of (3,000 squared plus 3,000 squared) which equals 4,42 miles.
Given the measured arc was constant at .5666666 of a degree or semi diameter of .266666666 degree we can use the same formula as above to get the diameter in miles of the sun.
Tan 0.26666666 multiplied by distance (4,242) equals 19.74 miles for half diameter or 39.5 miles across, which is NOT the same as the first calculation at noon. (41% bigger than the noons diameter) the apparent altitude was 45 degrees
Using the next observation as above at 17:00 the sun had travelled a total of 5 x 15 = 75 degrees of longitude, or 4,500 minutes of arc or 4346 Nmiles or 5,000 statute miles and was still 300 miles above the plane, therefore the actual diameter should be, Tan 0.26666666 x 5,000 = which is equal to 23.27 miles or 46.5 miles which is 66% bigger than at noon. The apparent altitude was 10 degrees.
As can be seen either the sun changes diameter (not possible) or should get smaller. I dont see Enag giving any form of proof other than a sketch to show how much bigger it gets! So i am forced to believe through my own eyes, and own empirical observations that the sun cannot be where the FE theory say it is.
-
Finding an example of lights which do get smaller in distance is not a disproof. Recall that the wiki says that it only happens to lights of a certain intensity. We don't know how bright those lights are in those examples.
If you look at those lights carefully, the far field lights are appropriately shrinking to small pinpricks. The lights in the street light example in the wiki do not shrink to pinpricks.
Other pinprick light may be found in the background of the streetlight photo, the headlights photo, and headlight video from the examples in the wiki, but that is not a disproof since we don't know how intense those are.
There is no credible evidence for magnification of the type described. Photography is obviously unreliable when showing the size of direct light sources. The best way to show whether magnification takes place is to reduce exposure so that it's correct for the actual light sources, not the scene as a whole. When the distortion from over-exposure is removed, all the light sources will decrease in size according to distance. There is no magnification effect, and no such thing has ever been detected.
-
Are we talking about lights, or about their glare in camera?
BTW, speaking of Sun's speed along the sky path:
same intervals appear shorter in the distance, when observed under sharper angles.
(http://aemstatic-ww1.azureedge.net/content/leds/en/ugc/iif/2014/05/28/zhuhai-doumen-district-intelligent-led-street-light-retrofit-is-latest-to-claim-smart-city-green-cit/_jcr_content/leftcolumn/article/headerimage.scale.large.jpg/1401312186117.jpg) (http://newafricabusinessnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/street-300x262.jpg)
(https://crsite-groupafrica.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/solar-street.jpg) (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/thumb/msid-53429615,width-400,resizemode-4/53429615.jpg)
It should be noted - we can see the road clearly in all these pictures. That means that they're massively overexposed for the actual light sources. This produces nice pictures, but it's clearly very unreliable for measuring the size of the light source itself. We can tell that they're over-exposed because of the massive diffusion, clearly visible especially at close range.
Reduce the exposure so that the light sources are seen clearly and we end up with a lousy picture of the road, but the light sources will all decrease in size exactly as they should, with no magnification effect.
-
Further proof that the flat earth cannot have sunset can be explained with further mathematics and trigonometry.
When the sun is at the observers zenith, ie the latitude and declination coincide the time of sunset will be when the sun has traversed apparently 90 degrees from the observer or 6 hours after.
Now the 90 degrees is equal to 5,400 minutes, and with my observations yesterday at latitude 15N would be 5,215 Nm or 6,000 statute miles.
This makes the mathematics really easy.
The calculated altitude of the sun above a plane horizon (which always is at eye level according to Enag) would be Tan altitude = 3,000 (hieght)/6,000, (distance) which is Tan alt=0.5 or in this case 26.6 degrees above the horizon.
No amount of refraction or horizon rising can make me believe the horizon is more than 1/4 of the way up the sky!
Before we hear vanishing points etc lets look at what the angular measurement of the sun diameter would be at that distance,
It would be 2 times tan angle = half diameter/distance.
Pythagoras would give us a straight line distance by square root of 6,000 squared plus 3,000 squared which equals 6,708 miles.
So tangent angular measure would be 14/6708 which is equal to 14.3 minutes of arc, well above what humans can see.
-
Finding an example of lights which do get smaller in distance is not a disproof. Recall that the wiki says that it only happens to lights of a certain intensity. We don't know how bright those lights are in those examples.
If you look at those lights carefully, the far field lights are appropriately shrinking to small pinpricks. The lights in the street light example in the wiki do not shrink to pinpricks.
Other pinprick light may be found in the background of the streetlight photo, the headlights photo, and headlight video from the examples in the wiki, but that is not a disproof since we don't know how intense those are.
Even the lights on Wiki photo have smaller and smaller apparent distances between intervals.
With well selected scaling you can count every next one as position after next hour.
Besides, even the same scenery will look different in different camera.
Especially with different apperture and exposure.
And no camera will show the same thing the eye sees.
Cameras simply have much narrower dynamic range.
My question was: are we talking about lights themselves, or their glare in the camera?
Do we understand the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Since Sun's speed in kilometers per second is constant, would this be clear enough explanation about Sun's apparent speed in degrees per second along sky path?
(http://i63.tinypic.com/27z924g.jpg)
-
My question was: are we talking about lights themselves, or their glare in the camera?
Do we understand the difference?
Given that any photograph of a direct light source can exhibit this effect, we can't use the size of a light source in a photograph as clear evidence of anything at all.
-
The lights in the street light example in the wiki do not shrink to pinpricks.
Other pinprick light may be found in the background of the streetlight photo, the headlights photo, and headlight video from the examples in the wiki, but that is not a disproof since we don't know how intense those are.
the thread has developed so I won't belabor this too much. but, the lights in the street light example do clearly shrink to pinpricks. I circled them in the annotated example in my previous post. they can be seen shrinking in the middle distance of <1 city block, and shrink to tiny pins in the way back.
it is a disproof because you do know how intense they are: equally intense to the street lights in the foreground.
therefore, two cases are possible: the streetlights in general are not intense enough to show the effect, so the picture is moot; or, Rowbotham's atmospheric magnification is not a real thing
-
Rowbotham's atmospheric magnification is not a real thing
No, its definitely real. And its not Dr Rowbothams 'atmospheric magnification'.
-
Rowbotham's atmospheric magnification is not a real thing
No, its definitely real. And its not Dr Rowbothams 'atmospheric magnification'.
Can you prove to us that it is real? I'd really appreciate that.
-
Read Dr Rowbothams work, I'm sure your capable of doing that yourself.
-
can we just all agree to ignore parallax, this is getting old. the obvious troll 'Sam Birley said it so it's true shut up' shtick is dumb af
-
Read Dr Rowbothams work, I'm sure your capable of doing that yourself.
That's what this whole discussion is about - testing Rowbotham's work. So, if you have evidence or an argument proving he is correct go ahead and present it.
-
The headlights should be small specks of light. They are not. The fact that they "overlap," as you admit, is evidence of a magnification effect.
The headlights of the cars further away are also pointed more directly at the camera. The closer the cars get, the more the headlights point away. I should probably remind you that automotive headlights are focused in a certain direction. On a straight stretch of road, oncoming headlights at night start out tiny, and grow in size (as anyone who has driven at night has seen).
If this explanation were true then we should expect the backgrounds to be out of focus, like in this image of the little girl in that article:
Did you also read in that same article how aperture will affect the focus of background objects?
-
Read Dr Rowbothams work, I'm sure your capable of doing that yourself.
That's what this whole discussion is about - testing Rowbotham's work. So, if you have evidence or an argument proving he is correct go ahead and present it.
Just look at it, the facts are crystal clear and speak for themselves. They don't need to be redone, they are irrefutable proof of what he was writing about.
-
But, Tom, don't you find it odd that you omit ANY notion of contradiction to your photo? Nearly every photo of lights shows the effect of them getting smaller with distance. It's been explained to you why your photo does not show this, and that it's simply a product of the camera. I certainly find this weird.
But, even in your photo, some lights far away are still smaller.
-
Read Dr Rowbothams work, I'm sure your capable of doing that yourself.
That's what this whole discussion is about - testing Rowbotham's work. So, if you have evidence or an argument proving he is correct go ahead and present it.
Just look at it, the facts are crystal clear and speak for themselves. They don't need to be redone, they are irrefutable proof of what he was writing about.
Again, arguments ad verecundiam are fallacious.
May I remind you that there once was a time when dragons were considered irrefutable?
By the way, this is the difference between science and pseudo-science. Scientific theories are tested, challenged all the time whereas pseudo-scientific theories evade such testing.
-
No, that's not what I meant to ask.
I wrote: "Which part of the picture is the far field? Is it the lights that are tiny pinpricks way back behind the overpass? that have, in fact, shrunk in size consistently, as they should?"
You wrote: "The wiki article describes that only light sources of a certain intensity magnifies."
I wrote: "The lights in the far field are the same intensity as the closer lights. I mean to say, they're all streetlights. If the streetlights are not intense enough for magnification to occur, what's the point of the picture? Why would close streetlights exhibit magnification but not distant streetlights?"
I mean, that last bit is literally, 'why A and not B,' and you've repeated it back as 'I think you're asking, why B and not A.' embarrassing for both of us
Here is a picture to clarify.
(https://i.imgur.com/20UJCZk.jpg)
The point is that those tiny pins in the background are also streetlights. The premise of the picture is that it shows magnification of distant light sources. However, those streetlights in the far distance are just as you said, tiny pinpricks. No magnification of the light source is seen.
also
9/10 has correctly pointed out that the only variable that matters with photons is frequency. A light source might radiate lots of photons, or few, but the amplitude of an individual photon does not affect its interaction with the atmosphere. From a physics point of view, there is no sensible way to describe Rowbotham's atmospheric magnification, without allowing for other effects such as diffusion.
We don't know whether the little specs you pointed out beneath the bridge are part of the same series of street lights.
Per the near field headlights on that car not being the same size as the far field street lights, how many times do I have to tell you that we are only concerned with the far field street lights maintaining their size. A near field light can be 1 centimeter from your eye ball and far larger than anything in the scene. It is an effect of the far field lights maintaining their size.
Per your illustration of the street lights, shrinking, that is a false representation. The far end of those lights are pretty constant in size.
-
Finding an example of lights which do get smaller in distance is not a disproof. Recall that the wiki says that it only happens to lights of a certain intensity. We don't know how bright those lights are in those examples.
If you look at those lights carefully, the far field lights are appropriately shrinking to small pinpricks. The lights in the street light example in the wiki do not shrink to pinpricks.
Other pinprick light may be found in the background of the streetlight photo, the headlights photo, and headlight video from the examples in the wiki, but that is not a disproof since we don't know how intense those are.
There is no credible evidence for magnification of the type described. Photography is obviously unreliable when showing the size of direct light sources. The best way to show whether magnification takes place is to reduce exposure so that it's correct for the actual light sources, not the scene as a whole. When the distortion from over-exposure is removed, all the light sources will decrease in size according to distance. There is no magnification effect, and no such thing has ever been detected.
The lights in the examples in the Wiki are clearly magnified. The scene is not "overexposed." You don't know what you are talking about. Light colors get whiter, and the lights may blend together if the contrast is high enough, but the whites don't blot out in size against a black background.
-
Finding an example of lights which do get smaller in distance is not a disproof. Recall that the wiki says that it only happens to lights of a certain intensity. We don't know how bright those lights are in those examples.
If you look at those lights carefully, the far field lights are appropriately shrinking to small pinpricks. The lights in the street light example in the wiki do not shrink to pinpricks.
Other pinprick light may be found in the background of the streetlight photo, the headlights photo, and headlight video from the examples in the wiki, but that is not a disproof since we don't know how intense those are.
Even the lights on Wiki photo have smaller and smaller apparent distances between intervals.
With well selected scaling you can count every next one as position after next hour.
Besides, even the same scenery will look different in different camera.
Especially with different apperture and exposure.
And no camera will show the same thing the eye sees.
Cameras simply have much narrower dynamic range.
My question was: are we talking about lights themselves, or their glare in the camera?
Do we understand the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Since Sun's speed in kilometers per second is constant, would this be clear enough explanation about Sun's apparent speed in degrees per second along sky path?
(http://i63.tinypic.com/27z924g.jpg)
This is a different question to the thread topic and I would suggest you research what we have to say about it.
-
There is an effect in the far field which enlarges light. Take a look at the examples here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Sorry Tom, that Wiki argument does not explain the diagram in EnaG.
Please try again.
The photo in the Wiki, clearly shows the lights at a similar or same level as the observer (when compared to the suns claimed altitude of 3,000 miles)
There is no indication of the atmospheric layer between the object and observer in the photograph.
-
There is an effect in the far field which enlarges light. Take a look at the examples here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Sorry Tom, that Wiki argument does not explain the diagram in EnaG.
Please try again.
The photo in the Wiki, clearly shows the lights at a similar or same level as the observer (when compared to the suns claimed altitude of 3,000 miles)
There is no indication of the atmospheric layer between the object and observer in the photograph.
The examples in the Wiki clearly show an enlarging effect. The lights of the headlights even overlap. This demonstrates that the headlights are enlarged.
Rowbotham also compares the effect to things like bright lamps at a distance. Read the description in Earth Not a Globe.
And yes, it is evident that those lights are in the atmosphere.
-
Finding an example of lights which do get smaller in distance is not a disproof. Recall that the wiki says that it only happens to lights of a certain intensity. We don't know how bright those lights are in those examples.
If you look at those lights carefully, the far field lights are appropriately shrinking to small pinpricks. The lights in the street light example in the wiki do not shrink to pinpricks.
Other pinprick light may be found in the background of the streetlight photo, the headlights photo, and headlight video from the examples in the wiki, but that is not a disproof since we don't know how intense those are.
Even the lights on Wiki photo have smaller and smaller apparent distances between intervals.
With well selected scaling you can count every next one as position after next hour.
Besides, even the same scenery will look different in different camera.
Especially with different apperture and exposure.
And no camera will show the same thing the eye sees.
Cameras simply have much narrower dynamic range.
My question was: are we talking about lights themselves, or their glare in the camera?
Do we understand the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Since Sun's speed in kilometers per second is constant, would this be clear enough explanation about Sun's apparent speed in degrees per second along sky path?
(http://i63.tinypic.com/27z924g.jpg)
This is a different question to the thread topic and I would suggest you research what we have to say about it.
I did.
What makes you think I didn't?
That's why I point out the difference between reality and "what you have to say".
-
I did.
What makes you think I didn't?
That's why I point out the difference between reality and "what you have to say".
It's a different question, off topic, and has been discussed before. Take it elsewhere.
-
There is an effect in the far field which enlarges light. Take a look at the examples here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Sorry Tom, that Wiki argument does not explain the diagram in EnaG.
Please try again.
The photo in the Wiki, clearly shows the lights at a similar or same level as the observer (when compared to the suns claimed altitude of 3,000 miles)
There is no indication of the atmospheric layer between the object and observer in the photograph.
The examples in the Wiki clearly show an enlarging effect. The lights of the headlights even overlap. This demonstrates that the headlights are enlarged.
Rowbotham also compares the effect to things like bright lamps at a distance. Read the description in Earth Not a Globe.
And yes, it is evident that those lights are in the atmosphere.
I am sorry Tom the headlight example in the Wiki to me seems deliberately chosen to fudge the question.
Poor resolution picture taken from a traffic cam, in poor visibility does not in any way prove that there is an enlarging effect.
In fact looking at the headlights to the far right of the traffic stream you can see them smaller and dimmer. Thus disproving your statement.
You also ignore the fact that headlights are focussed, so the steeper the angle below the traffic camera, ( and more importantly the horizontal angle) less light will be directed upwards towards the lens. The lights which are the brightest are also where the traffic density is heaviest, causing all the headlights to merge together and are at a better angle relative to the traffic camera to receive more of the focussed beam. The fact that the further ones are smaller and dimmer is the nail in the coffin, as according to EnaG the effect of the mist and fog increases the effect, therefore the further ones, travelling through more mist would be the brightest and biggest.
If you dont believe headlights are focussed ask the DOT, they are deliberately focussed to avoid blinding traffic on the opposite side of the highway. Your headlight photo on the Wiki shows a perfect example of this, and disproves your argument.
As for EnaG i have / am reading it, where do you think i got the quotes for?
I disagree with his statement about the size of a flame, so where does that leave us. He didnt provide any photos, so my observation holds as much sway as his. Neither has any credence without evidence.
Edit,
Why are there no tail lights visible on the cars going away from the camera? Surely they should be glowing brighter and larger as they recede? But there are none visible apart from those close to the camera. And before you say they are brake lights, are you telling me not one single car in the distance has applied brakes, but the ones in the foreground did?
Also of note is the shape of the central dividing strip. It certainly curves down, showing that the cars in the mid distance have an angle up an incline, therefore focussing the light on the traffic camera, which then levels out pretty much where the lights of the cars are shown to be angled further away from the camera.
I suggest you try and provide better shots to prove your weak arguments Tom.
-
The scene is not "overexposed." You don't know what you are talking about.
that's rich. btw this is an excellent example of what folks find so lacking in your version of empiricism, tom. you find an image of one black swan and declare that all swans everywhere are black.
(https://i.imgur.com/mzCh05f.png)
how did you measure the size of the lamps? what method did you use?
the lamps do get progressively smaller. although measuring them is somewhat subjective basically impossible. scattering + saturation are causing lots of flux to bleed into adjacent pixels, which is why it looks like one contiguous white blob. this image is worthless for proving what you're trying to prove.
btw have you not noticed that the only images you can find to support your hypothesis are dark/dimly lit? that's not a coincidence.
-
Per your illustration of the street lights, shrinking, that is a false representation. The far end of those lights are pretty constant in size.
no, they really are not. measure them yourself, if you doubt the annotations I made. the corona and the orb of the farthest light are less than 1/2 the size of the closest.
I leave it to other readers to decide for themselves if the tiny lights in the background are also streetlights. they are positioned in a line above the road, continuing from the line of the lights in the foreground. to me, it's obvious. to you, denial is obvious.
-
Just look at it, the facts are crystal clear and speak for themselves. They don't need to be redone, they are irrefutable proof of what he was writing about.
The character troll bit is starting to wear thin. Tone it down a bit.
-
CAUSE OF SUN APPEARING LARGER WHEN RISING AND SETTING THAN AT NOONDAY.
It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater "glare," 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.
This part is trying to ignore the fact that the Sun's surface configuration is visible through adequate filters, including sun spots, solar flares and details in corona.
That is also how we know that Sun spins at rate of one rotation every 24 days.
Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
Look at burning gas lamp or candle, and you will see different features of the flame.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/8b/5b/32/8b5b3202ad0df2e692b2d36ce5d1b58f--street-lights-foxes.jpg) (http://15bw4cp7lu2218npj298yzjq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/gaslamp.jpg)
Now step away and look at it through light fog to enlarge glare around, and you will lose flame features in blur.
You will see only bright spot of certain size.
However, on a clear night, without that light fog, you will see details of the flame, but the apparent size will get reduced with distance.
Even the best camera has dynamic range much narrower than human eye and can add glare where eye won't see it.
on going away to many times the distance, the light or "glare" upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense.
With water droplets in the atmosphere we will have larger glare but no flame features, as we already established.
Obviously, there is no magnification, there's only diffusion when conditions allow it.
And they don't always, as we will see.
With glare we have blur.
Without blur we don't have glare.
It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour. The following diagram, fig. 66, will show also that, as the sun recedes from the meridian, over a plane surface, the light, as it strikes the atmosphere, must give a larger disc.
About one hour or less before sunset (or after sunrise) there are days with glare (light fog or thin clouds) and days without glare when all the Sun features could be clearly visible through proper filters.
Glare around doesn't enlarge details, can only blur them due to diffusion.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig66.jpg)
Fig. 66.
Let A, B, represent the upper stratum of the atmosphere; C, D, the surface of the earth; and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the sun, in his morning, forenoon, noon, afternoon, and evening positions. It is evident that when he is in the position 1, the disc of light projected upon the atmosphere at 6, is considerably larger than the disc projected from the forenoon position, 2, upon the atmosphere at 7; and the disc at 7 is larger than that formed at 8, when the sun, at 3, is on the meridian; when at 4, the disc at 9 is again larger; and when at 5, or in the evening, the disc at 10 is again as large as at 6, or the morning position. It is evident that the above results are what must of necessity occur if the sun's path, the line of atmosphere, and the earth's surface, are parallel and horizontal lines. That such results do constantly occur is a matter of everyday observation; and we may logically deduce front it a striking argument against the rotundity of the earth, and in favour of the contrary conclusion, that it is horizontal. The atmosphere surrounding a globe would not permit of anything like the same degree of enlargement of the sun when rising and setting, as we daily see in nature.
As presented in the Fig. 66, Sun at position 3 would have greater angular diameter than Sun at position 1.
Projection at position 8 is no greater than Sun at position 3.
Projection at position 6 may be stretched into elliptical form, and it may have one axis greater than Sun axis at position 1,
but by the observer it is seen under some sharp angle and that longer axis is reduced by cosine of the obserbing angle.
Seen from the observer can't be bigger than the angular size of Sun itself, which is seen by edge-seeing lines.
Glare around it can add more light, but it won't enlarge Sun.
On a clear day (with visible corona, solar flares and sun spots) the Sun disc itself would be visibly smaller if the distance to Sun was considerably changed.
Last photo was taken at 16:45 (4:45pm), just a little over one hour before sunset, similar to position 5 in Fig. 66.
(http://www.compadre.org/informal/images/features/Sun--surface-large.gif) (https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/large_image_for_image_content/sun_sdo_aia_304_19sept2010_640x600.jpg) (https://piramidalcwb.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/sol.gif) (http://i.space.com/images/i/000/019/430/i02/sdo-x14-solar-flare.jpg)