[Antithecystem]

I find this phenomenon puzzling.
Moonlight appears localized, yet millions of people all over the globe can see it and its light simultaneously, why?
Is it an optical illusion, or something else?

[Antithecystem]

If you live in say Seattle, and you were to gaze at the moon at night, it would be predominantly illuminating the clouds in your vicinity, Seattle's clouds, yet both science, flat earthers and just plain ol' common sense tells us its not in your vicinity, the moon can be seen by half the world at any given time, and wherever you gaze at it from, it'll appear to illuminate the clouds appearing in front of it from your point of view, so if you were to look up at it in Rome, it would appear to be mostly illuminating Roman clouds, and if you were to look up at it in Beijing, it would appear to be mostly illuminating Beijing's clouds, so what gives???

[Antithecystem]

While flat and round earthers argue over the solidity, size and distance to the moon, they both agree it's sufficiently big and far that it can be seen by about half the world at any given time, yet the light it gives off is indicative of a moon that can only been seen by a small slice of the world at any given time.
So the moon seems to have two contradictory properties, worldly visibility, yet local illumination.
If the moon is at least as far flats earthers suggest, it should appear to illuminate the entire night sky evenly, should it not?

[Antithecystem]

Sunlight behaves the same way, it appears localized, so what's up, who can explain this?
Keep in mind this contradicts both round, and flat models.
Both solar and lunar light behave as if they were emanating from objects that can only be seen by a small percentage (like less than 1%) of the world at any given time, as if they're just several miles up, both nearer than round, and flat earthers are claiming.
The easiest explanation is it's just an optical illusion, but if so, does this optical illusion have a name?
How does it work, and can it be observed in candlelight, torchlight or light bulb light?

[Antithecystem]

Here's some more images:





Keep in mind these divergent rays can't be explained by perspective, as the rays are pointing downward, not at the viewer.
Furthermore, rays should be coming from every part of the sky, not just the part the sun appears to be in, cause it's actually not anymore in one part of the sky than another.
So if the sun appeared to be behind a small cloud, and the rest of the sky is clear, that cloud shouldn't block its light, cause its light should be coming from all parts of the sky, if it's really as big/far as both rounds and even flats are claiming.

What if we live in a Truman like reality, where there are multiple clone suns, moons and stars, or what if the sun, moon and stars are capable of behaving in global/worldly and local ways simultaneously?
What if they weren't like earthbound objects at all?
What if, they were like...paraobjects?

[Antithecystem]

Aside from it being an optical illusion, althou I'm not sure how it could be, what else could it be?
Sun and moonlight manifest locally, yet they can be seen globally/worldly.
Perhaps the sun and moon are nearer than both round and flat earthers say, just several miles above the clouds, and can be seen all over the world because the world is smaller than scientists and cartographers say, perhaps 10, or 100 times smaller.
Or perhaps the sun and moon are irrational objects, they're simultaneously big/far and small/near.
Maybe there's multiple clone suns and moons orbiting the earth, but how would that even work?

[Antithecystem]

Or maybe I'm the only person in existence, everyone else is like a hologram.
When I'm not observing something, it disappears, and when I am, it reappears, yet behaves as if it were still there when I wasn't looking.
The world is flat, with only a 10 or 20 mile radius, yet no matter where I go, I'm always in the center of it, as if I'm walking on a treadmill.
When I go 'forward', things appear in front of me and disappear behind me.
The sun sets underneath the flat earth, and everyone and everything only behaves as if they went on existing when I'm not observing them, and as if they were receiving sunlight when they were not.

[Oami]

There is no contradiction. The moon and sun are both very far away: the moon approximately 384,000 km and the sun approximately 150,000,000 km. (Even though the difference between these two is enormous, under normal circumstances it doesn't matter: in local and not-too-scientific observations, we can treat both of these numbers like infinity.)

Keep in mind these divergent rays can't be explained by perspective, as the rays are pointing downward, not at the viewer.

No, they are not pointing downward. They come in a certain angle. You cannot measure that angle from that one photograph, because a 2-dimensional photograph simply cannot give you an exact view of a 3-dimensional world.

[Antithecystem]

There is no contradiction. The moon and sun are both very far away: the moon approximately 384,000 km and the sun approximately 150,000,000 km. (Even though the difference between these two is enormous, under normal circumstances it doesn't matter: in local and not-too-scientific observations, we can treat both of these numbers like infinity.)

Keep in mind these divergent rays can't be explained by perspective, as the rays are pointing downward, not at the viewer.

No, they are not pointing downward. They come in a certain angle. You cannot measure that angle from that one photograph, because a 2-dimensional photograph simply cannot give you an exact view of a 3-dimensional world.

How do you know they come in a certain angle if "you cannot measure that angle from that one photograph"?
For all you know then, they don't, and mainstream science is making some things up.
Nothing is exact, no two inches on different rulers or the same ruler are exact duplicates of each other.
While the photograph all by itself isn't proof positive, it looks as thou the rays are headed straight down, or a hell of a lot more straight down than towards the viewer.
It's not exact, it's not perfect, but it's still evidence.

[Oami]

How do you know they come in a certain angle if "you cannot measure that angle from that one photograph"?

If I were to ground my belief from one single photograph, then I wouldn't know it either.

But I see the sun very often, and I never see it straight up above me – that simply doesn't happen on my latitudes. (Well, I have seen it straight up when travelling in the tropics, but never in my homeland.) If the person who took that picture had taken a boat and gone himself to the point where the sunbeams hit the water – do you think he would have seen the sun straight up? No, he wouldn't.

While the photograph all by itself isn't proof positive, it looks as thou the rays are headed straight down, or a hell of a lot more straight down than towards the viewer.
It's not exact, it's not perfect, but it's still evidence.

If that is your opinion, then so be it.

[Antithecystem]

All the photographs I've seen on the internet so far show sun rays fanned out, whether the rays looked like they were headed toward or away from the observer, or straight down.
Show me a photograph of parallel rays over a long distance.

[Rounder]

The easiest explanation is it's just an optical illusion, but if so, does this optical illusion have a name?
How does it work, and can it be observed in candlelight, torchlight or light bulb light?

Yes, this optical illusion has a name: Crepuscular Rays.  There is a related but opposite phenomenon of Anti-Crepuscular Rays as well.

[Antithecystem]

How do you know they come in a certain angle if "you cannot measure that angle from that one photograph"?

If I were to ground my belief from one single photograph, then I wouldn't know it either.

But I see the sun very often, and I never see it straight up above me – that simply doesn't happen on my latitudes. (Well, I have seen it straight up when travelling in the tropics, but never in my homeland.) If the person who took that picture had taken a boat and gone himself to the point where the sunbeams hit the water – do you think he would have seen the sun straight up? No, he wouldn't.

While the photograph all by itself isn't proof positive, it looks as thou the rays are headed straight down, or a hell of a lot more straight down than towards the viewer.
It's not exact, it's not perfect, but it's still evidence.

If that is your opinion, then so be it.

While it's impossible to be certain, in the first photograph, the crack in the clouds doesn't appear to be behind, or at least significantly (of course what would constitute significantly in this context requires further clarification by me, which I'm honestly not able to do at this point) behind the spotlight on the sea, indicating the rays are headed straight, or nearly straight down, not towards the observer, and that therefore, the sun appears to be directly, or nearly directly above the crack in the clouds from which the rays are emanating.

[Oami]

All the photographs I've seen on the internet so far show sun rays fanned out, whether the rays looked like they were headed toward or away from the observer, or straight down.
Show me a photograph of parallel rays over a long distance.

The rays are parallel. They just don't look like so because of the perspective.

However, if you put a person to each of these spots where the rays hit the water at the same time and let them measure the angles, you will find out that the sun seems to be in the same direction from each one of those. Of course it is a little difficult, because this is water, and each of these persons should have a boat that stands perfectly still. (Or maybe the water freezes in the winter?)

Have you ever been in a city where a street rises up a hill? Then you have maybe noticed that the left edge and that right edge of that street seem to not be parallel, although they are.

[Rounder]

All the photographs I've seen on the internet so far show sun rays fanned out, whether the rays looked like they were headed toward or away from the observer, or straight down.
Show me a photograph of parallel rays over a long distance.

Here you go, sunbeams and cloud shadows viewed from overhead:

[Antithecystem]

All the photographs I've seen on the internet so far show sun rays fanned out, whether the rays looked like they were headed toward or away from the observer, or straight down.
Show me a photograph of parallel rays over a long distance.

Here you go, sunbeams and cloud shadows viewed from overhead:

The distance between those two rays looks rather short.

[Antithecystem]

And what about both the moon and the sun's light appearing localized, does anyone have an answer for that?

[Curious Squirrel]

And what about both the moon and the sun's light appearing localized, does anyone have an answer for that?

Rounder told you above it was due to Crepuscular Rays. An optical illusion, similar to what makes parallel railway lines appear to converge in the distance.

[Antithecystem]

And what about both the moon and the sun's light appearing localized, does anyone have an answer for that?

Rounder told you above it was due to Crepuscular Rays. An optical illusion, similar to what makes parallel railway lines appear to converge in the distance.

That's not what I'm referring to right now, why does both the sun and moon primarily illuminate the clouds and landscape appearing to surround them?
Where the sun and moon appear in the sky is also due to perspective, since they're so big/far, they're hardly anymore where they appear to be than where they don't appear to be.
If the sun and moon are as big as they say, and as far as they say, they should be illuminating everything evenly.

Furthermore, why don't the rays come from every part of the sky, I'm not talking about how the rays diverge, that in some, not all, but at least in some cases can be attributed to perspective, but how come all the rays come from where the sun appears to be in the sky, the rays should be coming from every point in the sky, regardless of whether they're appearing to diverge due to perspective or not.

[Curious Squirrel]

And what about both the moon and the sun's light appearing localized, does anyone have an answer for that?

Rounder told you above it was due to Crepuscular Rays. An optical illusion, similar to what makes parallel railway lines appear to converge in the distance.

That's not what I'm referring to right now, why does both the sun and moon primarily illuminate the clouds and landscape appearing to surround them?
Where the sun and moon appear in the sky is also due to perspective, since they're so big/far, they're hardly anymore where they appear to be than where they don't appear to be.
If the sun and moon are as big as they say, and as far as they say, they should be illuminating everything evenly.

Furthermore, why don't the rays come from every part of the sky, I'm not talking about how the rays diverge, that in some, not all, but at least in some cases can be attributed to perspective, but how come all the rays come from where the sun appears to be in the sky, the rays should be coming from every point in the sky, regardless of whether they're appearing to diverge due to perspective or not.

I don't understand what you're talking about in the first bit here? Are you asking why the sun/moon appears to illuminate things directly between it and you brighter than anything else in the sky? Because I don't think that's a thing other than in some of the specific cases you are showing where they're illuminating through a hole in the clouds. Everything *is* being illuminated evenly, but the clouds in the sky are blocking some of it. Ever gone out on a clear moonlit night during a full moon? Everything is bathed evenly.

Why would the rays appear to come from the entire sky? The sun isn't that close to us. Take a normal light. Turn it on. Look at it. It takes up much more of your vision standing 2 feet from it than standing 20 feet from it. Same idea, the distances involved are simply much greater.