[Storm]

Yep, it's amazing how all that works. The mysteries of our beautiful world.

[iamcpc]

Yep, it's amazing how all that works. The mysteries of our beautiful world.

Is that thing over the earth in your model a dome, a firmament, water, or something else?

In your model are the other stars in the sky inside or outside of that thing mentioned above?

In the "thing" mentioned above is it visible or invisible to the naked eye?

[thors_evil_twin]

Yep, it's amazing how all that works. The mysteries of our beautiful world.

How do the stars in the southern skies work? What would be the cause of an eclipse?

[model 29]

Here's an impossible image, guys and gals.....



...yessir. Straight from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range

Mountain in the foreground is Mt. Rainier in Washington State. Mountains in the background, from left to right, are Adams, Hood and St. Helens.

But wait!!!.....That's impossible!!

Mount Hood is almost a HUNDRED miles from Mount Rainier!!

Science tells us the earth is 25,000 miles in diameter and that the curvature drops 8 inches per mile squared!! We couldn't POSSIBLY see Mount Hood from Mount Rainier!!

--------

Per Wikipedia: Mt. Rainier is 80 miles wide.....hmmm....no curve there anywhere in the image left to right AT ALL. Wiki says it's 700 miles long North to South....nope....no visible curve there. And Mt. St. Helens is 34 miles from Mt. Hood....that's strange.....there's absolutely NO curve between those mountains, EITHER!!!

Maybe it has something to do with where that ol' nasty ship is sitting on the horizon, or OOPS, NOT on the horizon I mean. SORRY!

I know what it is..........it's that dadgum red-liquid rain guage that's boogered things up so good. Drats!! Foiled again!

Pic taken from an airliner, so observer has enough elevation to see that far, and no distinguishable horizon to see any left to right curvature.  Try again.

[AATW]

it certainly indicates the very unique characteristics that moonlight has and how those characteristics affect plants that bloom without sunlight (at night time).

The picture you originally posted calls them "night" blooming flowers. As has been explained, they have evolved to bloom at night to coincide with nocturnal insects which pollinate them. Nothing to do with moonlight.

moonlight is uniquely different than sunlight. (Moonlight is NOT reflected sunlight.)

No it isn't and yes it is. Why on earth would the moon have phases if it's self-illuminating? Phases are a characteristic of a body being illuminated as are shadows. I took this myself:



I don't have a fancy camera but even on that you can see shadows of craters, it's clear the moon is being lit.

Lunar cycles do have an impact on some things but not because there is any inherent different quality about moonlight. There isn't. It may be that the amount of light the moon reflects, which varies with the moon phases, may have an impact on things.

Just to specifically respond to this part:

What we do know is that moonlight, while generally similar to the sunlight..., shifts a bit towards the infrared...This makes moonlight not just a less intense version of sunlight—it is somewhat qualitatively different, too.

Any body when reflecting light will absorb some wavelengths and reflect others. That is literally how we see colours. There is no inherent "redness" about things we perceive as red, they simply absorb other wavelengths and reflect red ones. So yes, the light coming from the moon will have a different spectrum to that coming from the sun because of the wavelengths which the moon absorbs. But moonlight doesn't "cool things down" (another claim oft repeated on here), it's just a reflection of the light from the sun, the moon phases and shadows we see on it prove this.

[Groit]

This shows us exactly where the sun is and gives us a rough idea of its size. Believed to be approximately 35 miles in diameter.




2. They show how much smaller our sun is than science would have us believe.

Don't let anybody tell you this is light refraction. Light doesn't refract uniformly like this with all rays not only lining up perfectly side by side, but also gradually spreading out perfectly like a fan. That's just not how refraction works.

This laminate floor also looks like its spreading out like a fan and converging to a point, but those planks are running parallel just like the rays from the sun.

[Storm]

This shows us exactly where the sun is and gives us a rough idea of its size. Believed to be approximately 35 miles in diameter.




2. They show how much smaller our sun is than science would have us believe.

Don't let anybody tell you this is light refraction. Light doesn't refract uniformly like this with all rays not only lining up perfectly side by side, but also gradually spreading out perfectly like a fan. That's just not how refraction works.

This laminate floor also looks like its spreading out like a fan and converging to a point, but those planks are running parallel just like the rays from the sun.

This claim to explain away sun rays that are pointing 'UP' toward the source/sun, doesn't work at all. It's not difficult to tell the difference between parallel lines that are moving toward the vanishing point and rays of sunlight that are shining 'DOWN' out of a cloud.

That image, in particular, shows very clearly that the sun, itself, is plainly obscured by clouds between it and the viewer.

Therefore, the only possible avenue of escape for the sunlight is 'DOWN' out of the clouds and toward the ground. This is clearly evident to the eye.

Here are some perfect examples of sunlight shining 'DOWN' onto the ground and water below the clouds that are obscuring their source.

[Storm]

Here's an impossible image, guys and gals.....



...yessir. Straight from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range

Mountain in the foreground is Mt. Rainier in Washington State. Mountains in the background, from left to right, are Adams, Hood and St. Helens.

But wait!!!.....That's impossible!!

Mount Hood is almost a HUNDRED miles from Mount Rainier!!

Science tells us the earth is 25,000 miles in diameter and that the curvature drops 8 inches per mile squared!! We couldn't POSSIBLY see Mount Hood from Mount Rainier!!

--------

Per Wikipedia: Mt. Rainier is 80 miles wide.....hmmm....no curve there anywhere in the image left to right AT ALL. Wiki says it's 700 miles long North to South....nope....no visible curve there. And Mt. St. Helens is 34 miles from Mt. Hood....that's strange.....there's absolutely NO curve between those mountains, EITHER!!!

Maybe it has something to do with where that ol' nasty ship is sitting on the horizon, or OOPS, NOT on the horizon I mean. SORRY!

I know what it is..........it's that dadgum red-liquid rain guage that's boogered things up so good. Drats!! Foiled again!

Pic taken from an airliner, so observer has enough elevation to see that far, and no distinguishable horizon to see any left to right curvature.  Try again.

Pic taken from airliner? Possibly, but no proof anywhere in that Wiki page link.

No distinguishable horizon? Fail.

No left to right curvature? Correct.

You can see plenty clearly in that image to detect if there were the amount of curvature there is supposed to be for 50-60 miles distance left to right.

There is none.

[Tumeni]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range#/media/File:Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg

"no proof the picture is from an airliner" - click on the pictue in the wikipedia page to get the link above

From the above;

"Three Cascade Range mountains: Mount Rainier (foreground) as well as Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams seen poking through the cloud layer shortly after takeoff on a commercial flight from Seattle to Detroit. Despite bringing a microfiber cloth to clean the aircraft window, the poor optical quality of the window resulted in a blurry photo."


The photographer is;

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dllu

[stack]

Here's an impossible image, guys and gals.....



...yessir. Straight from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range

Mountain in the foreground is Mt. Rainier in Washington State. Mountains in the background, from left to right, are Adams, Hood and St. Helens.

But wait!!!.....That's impossible!!

Mount Hood is almost a HUNDRED miles from Mount Rainier!!

Science tells us the earth is 25,000 miles in diameter and that the curvature drops 8 inches per mile squared!! We couldn't POSSIBLY see Mount Hood from Mount Rainier!!

--------

Per Wikipedia: Mt. Rainier is 80 miles wide.....hmmm....no curve there anywhere in the image left to right AT ALL. Wiki says it's 700 miles long North to South....nope....no visible curve there. And Mt. St. Helens is 34 miles from Mt. Hood....that's strange.....there's absolutely NO curve between those mountains, EITHER!!!

Maybe it has something to do with where that ol' nasty ship is sitting on the horizon, or OOPS, NOT on the horizon I mean. SORRY!

I know what it is..........it's that dadgum red-liquid rain guage that's boogered things up so good. Drats!! Foiled again!

Pic taken from an airliner, so observer has enough elevation to see that far, and no distinguishable horizon to see any left to right curvature.  Try again.

Pic taken from airliner? Possibly, but no proof anywhere in that Wiki page link.

"English: Three Cascade Range mountains: Mount Rainier (foreground) as well as Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams seen poking through the cloud layer shortly after takeoff on a commercial flight from Seattle to Detroit. Despite bringing a microfiber cloth to clean the aircraft window, the poor optical quality of the window resulted in a blurry photo."
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg

Research more.

No distinguishable horizon? Fail.

How so?

No left to right curvature? Correct.

No one of a right mind expects to see curvature at such a low altitude. Earth is very large.

You can see plenty clearly in that image to detect if there were the amount of curvature there is supposed to be for 50-60 miles distance left to right.

There is none.

See above.

[Tumeni]

You can see plenty clearly in that image to detect if there were the amount of curvature there is supposed to be ...

Plenty of ... what?

[stack]

This shows us exactly where the sun is and gives us a rough idea of its size. Believed to be approximately 35 miles in diameter.




2. They show how much smaller our sun is than science would have us believe.

Don't let anybody tell you this is light refraction. Light doesn't refract uniformly like this with all rays not only lining up perfectly side by side, but also gradually spreading out perfectly like a fan. That's just not how refraction works.

This laminate floor also looks like its spreading out like a fan and converging to a point, but those planks are running parallel just like the rays from the sun.

This claim to explain away sun rays that are pointing 'UP' toward the source/sun, doesn't work at all. It's not difficult to tell the difference between parallel lines that are moving toward the vanishing point and rays of sunlight that are shining 'DOWN' out of a cloud.

That image, in particular, shows very clearly that the sun, itself, is plainly obscured by clouds between it and the viewer.

Therefore, the only possible avenue of escape for the sunlight is 'DOWN' out of the clouds and toward the ground. This is clearly evident to the eye.

Here are some perfect examples of sunlight shining 'DOWN' onto the ground and water below the clouds that are obscuring their source.

If the sun was just above the clouds that would make it 10k, 20k feet above earth? Seriously? Tell us more how that would work, especially on a cloudless day.

[Storm]

No one of a right mind expects to see curvature at such a low altitude. Earth is very large.

Not so large. 25,000 miles circumference, so they say. 50-60 mi from left to right in that image. That's roughly half a mile of drop on each side of that image that is strangely missing.

I guess you're saying you'd have to be insane to see it? You'd be right, because it is clearly not there.

[stack]

No one of a right mind expects to see curvature at such a low altitude. Earth is very large.

Not so large. 25,000 miles circumference, so they say. 50-60 mi from left to right in that image. That's roughly half a mile of drop on each side of that image that is strangely missing.

I guess you're saying you'd have to be insane to see it? You'd be right, because it is clearly not there.

The red line in the inset is 50 miles long. Earth is large.

[Storm]

The picture you originally posted calls them "night" blooming flowers. As has been explained, they have evolved to bloom at night to coincide with nocturnal insects which pollinate them. Nothing to do with moonlight.

Does this imply that there aren't enough diurnal insects to get the job done?

And, nothing to do with moonlight?

All of these people from the article linked would strongly disagree with you. Seeing that they are the ones who did the extensive research and published their findings:

Isabella Guerrini, at the University of Perugia in Italy
Authors Ian Cole and Michael Balick
Ernst Zurcher
Dr. Guerrini
Article author Guido Mase

Planting by the moon
While the factors that affect plant growth are complex and vary greatly, the basic concept is really quite simple. As the moon increases in light towards the full moon, sap flow is more active. Conversely, as the moon wanes, sap flow slows.

https://permacultureprinciples.com/post/moonlight-affect-plant-growth/#lightbox/0/

moonlight is uniquely different than sunlight. (Moonlight is NOT reflected sunlight.)

No it isn't and yes it is....

Oh, yes it is and no, it isn't.

The article in question clearly states:

...moonlight [is] not just a less intense version of sunlight—it is somewhat qualitatively different, too.

Just to specifically respond to this part:

What we do know is that moonlight, while generally similar to the sunlight..., shifts a bit towards the infrared...This makes moonlight not just a less intense version of sunlight—it is somewhat qualitatively different, too.

Any body when reflecting light will absorb some wavelengths and reflect others. That is literally how we see colours. There is no inherent "redness" about things we perceive as red, they simply absorb other wavelengths and reflect red ones. So yes, the light coming from the moon will have a different spectrum to that coming from the sun because of the wavelengths which the moon absorbs.

You are simply describing a less intense version of sunlight; exactly what the article specifically points out is 'not' the reason for their results. They are adamant that their findings are due to the light of the moon; not some gravitational effect, nor any less intense version of reflected sunlight.

...he also points out that the easy explanation (a tide-like gravitational force) is most likely incorrect, as the amount of water in even the largest tree is relatively small, and a tidal force would be negligible.

https://permacultureprinciples.com/post/moonlight-affect-plant-growth/#lightbox/0/

[AATW]

Not so large. 25,000 miles circumference, so they say. 50-60 mi from left to right in that image. That's roughly half a mile of drop on each side of that image that is strangely missing.

I guess you're saying you'd have to be insane to see it? You'd be right, because it is clearly not there.

The diameter of earth is 7,917 miles. So I went into Paint.NET and drew a circle 791x791 (should have been 792 really, but let's not split hairs.
Here's the top of that circle with two lines 40 pixels apart.



That represents 400 miles - 10 pixels to a mile. Where's the curve?
tl;dr - the earth is really big. At normal scales and altitudes you can't see the curve left to right. You need to be very high up for that.

As for the crepuscular rays, it's explained well here



If the sun was as close as implied by some of your images then planes would crash into it.

Edit. I note in your reply about moonlight you have ignored the point about phases and shadows. How are those things possible if the moon is self-illuminating?

[Tumeni]

Not so large. 25,000 miles circumference, so they say. 50-60 mi from left to right in that image. That's roughly half a mile of drop on each side of that image that is strangely missing.

Drop of WHAT? It's all cloud cover and haze. No discernable horizon that could be used to determine any "drop". Not even a reasonably flat area of land, it's all "accidented" as the early explorers put it....

[Tom Bishop]

As for the crepuscular rays, it's explained well here

No, it is not explained well. If the camera was half a mile away from those rays they would be parallel to each other.

We often see pictures of the crepuscular rays spreading apart from each other in the distance, showing that this explanation is insufficient.



"Crepuscular Rays over Ardery Island in the Windmill Islands"

[AATW]

No, it is not explained well.

It is. The fact that you continue to fail to understand that explanation isn't because it's poorly explained.

If the camera was half a mile away from those rays they would be parallel to each other.

You said this last time I posted the video. I pointed out then and will point out again that this a meaningless statement about a 3D model which has no scale.

We often see pictures of the crepuscular rays spreading apart from each other in the distance, showing that this explanation is insufficient.

All that photo (which is lovely by the way) shows is that the sun is at an angle such that the rays are pointing towards the viewer
I've had a go at explaining this:



Can you see that if the viewer is where the arrow is and looking in the direction the arrow is pointing in then the black slanting lines which in reality are parallel in 3D space will appear angled towards each other and will appear to be coming from a point? That is what is happening in the image you posted.

And you are aware of anti-crepuscular rays?



In that image the sun is behind the camera. But it's the same thing, the rays in reality in 3D space are parallel but because they are receding into the distance they look like they converge at a point which would make the sun in multiple places. Of course in reality it's just a perspective effect.

And I asked you this before, if you believe these rays are really emanating from the sun and you're seeing a lot of their path from it then why can't you see any EA bending effect in their path?

[Tom Bishop]

All that photo (which is lovely by the way) shows is that the sun is at an angle such that the rays are pointing towards the viewer
I've had a go at explaining this:



Can you see that if the viewer is where the arrow is and looking in the direction the arrow is pointing in then the black slanting lines which in reality are parallel in 3D space will appear angled towards each other and will appear to be coming from a point? That is what is happening in the image you posted.

You are speaking about a close range perspective effect. Those parallel lines will straighten out when the observer recedes away from them. The distance does matter.



Notice how the lines only appear to be angled at around 80 degrees in relation to each other when the camera is up really close? How does that work when the camera is miles away like in the image of the crepuscular rays over the island which are clearly miles away?

And I asked you this before, if you believe these rays are really emanating from the sun and you're seeing a lot of their path from it then why can't you see any EA bending effect in their path?

EA occurs over hundreds and thousands of miles.