[Tontogary]

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?

[HorstFue]

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.


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!

[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

[xenotolerance]

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

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[xenotolerance]

that is in part an effect of the focus and exposure settings in the cameras. see here. 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.

[Tom Bishop]

that is in part an effect of the focus and exposure settings in the cameras. see here. 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:



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 and in the video headlight example 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.

[xenotolerance]

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

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[xenotolerance]

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

we're repeating ourselves, and you've started hitting up all caps. I'm out

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[xenotolerance]

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

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[xenotolerance]

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.

[Macarios]

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.

[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.

[Tontogary]

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.

[Tontogary]

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.

[Westprog]

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.