[Tom Bishop]

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.

[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.

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.

[garygreen]

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.



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.

[xenotolerance]

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.

[juner]

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.

[Macarios]

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.

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.

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.