[Westprog]

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.

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.

[Tontogary]

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.

[Macarios]

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?

[Westprog]

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.

[xenotolerance]

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

[Parallax]

Rowbotham's atmospheric magnification is not a real thing

No, its definitely real. And its not Dr Rowbothams 'atmospheric magnification'.

[Stagiri]

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.

[Parallax]

Read Dr Rowbothams work, I'm sure your capable of doing that yourself.

[xenotolerance]

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

[Stagiri]

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.

[model 29]

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?

[Parallax]

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.

[nickrulercreator]

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.

[Stagiri]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.


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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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?

This is a different question to the thread topic and I would suggest you research what we have to say about it.

[Tontogary]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Macarios]

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?

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".