[Jura-Glenlivet]

And the Anti-crepuscular rays?

The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.

But here's the primary and major difference.

Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.

Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.


Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg

In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg



—

Sorry you have misunderstood what anti-crepuscular both look like and how they are the from the same source, ie the sun shining through clouds (nothing to do with trees?), you have to turn 180deg' from the sun to see them and they converge on the opposite horizon showing that it is a perspective thing.
See  http://earthsky.org/earth/how-to-see-anticrepuscular-rays

But even normal Crepuscular rays show a different perspective when viewed from the side, see https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=2&t=cloud70&i=33
Just in case you wanted to see the clouds I meant, it's the one at the bottom right labelled Toronto as this link only takes you part of the way(?) Bloody hell! they have moved it to the next page, look for it "Toronto bathed in crepuscular rays"

Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.

—

It's called getting the basics right. So the anti rays are not moot as they seem to fan out but narrow down behind you they show it is a perspective thing.

[Rayzor]

Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.

—

So now we know  the rays are parallel,   how far away does that make the sun?

[Orbisect-64]

Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.

—

So now we know  the rays are parallel,   how far away does that make the sun?

The rays are not parallel. From a side view viewing the rays from straight on, even from a high mountain, the angles are seen - hence the angles are true. You will apparently twist anything (including my words) to fit your theories.

[Rayzor]

Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.

—

So now we know  the rays are parallel,   how far away does that make the sun?

The rays are not parallel. From a side view viewing the rays from straight on, even from a high mountain, the angles are seen - hence the angles are true. You will apparently twist anything (including my words) to fit your theories.

So,  from your measurement of the angle what is the calculated distance to the sun? 

[model 29]

However what should be noted is that the distance between any two beams is very short. Therefor the short length will be calculated together with the angle of the beams to obtain the distance of the sun.

Beams from a distance which hit two points on the ground that are far apart will take the length into consideration, as well as the two angles, when calculating the distance of the sun.

We await your calculations showing the sun to be a couple hundred feet away.

[frisbee]

However what should be noted is that the distance between any two beams is very short. Therefor the short length will be calculated together with the angle of the beams to obtain the distance of the sun.

Beams from a distance which hit two points on the ground that are far apart will take the length into consideration, as well as the two angles, when calculating the distance of the sun.

We await your calculations showing the sun to be a couple hundred feet away.

That's not the sun, that's my mothership.

[huh?]

Have you ever seen rays of light shining down through the clouds?  Something like this?





If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory.  The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states. 

To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.

What a ridicules thing to say -any strong light source may appear to have rays of light around it. They may give some indication of the brightness of a light source but not its distance. They may also vary some depending on atmospheric conditions.



 

[Charming Anarchist]

By that logic: The end of all train tracks and roads must also be "very very" close.

No!!   Are you blind? 
Train tracks and roads are only a few feet wide. 
The triangulated span of the sun's rays is many times wider than the width of a road. 

Your post is possibly the laziest attempt at shillery I have ever seen. Worst thing about it is it is not even original. Just another lame re-post of the same tired old cookie/cutter junk.

[huh?]

By that logic: The end of all train tracks and roads must also be "very very" close.

No!!   Are you blind? 
Train tracks and roads are only a few feet wide. 
The triangulated span of the sun's rays is many times wider than the width of a road. 

That makes no since.

As the picture of the low sunset proves the width or angle of the rays has nothing to do with its distance.


Crepuscular rays /krɨˈpʌskjʉlər/ (also known as sunbeams, Sun rays or God rays) in atmospheric optics, are rays of sunlight that appear to radiate from the point in the sky where the sun is located. These rays, which stream through gaps in clouds (particularly stratocumulus) or between other objects, are columns of sunlit air separated by darker cloud-shadowed regions. Despite seeming to converge at a point, the rays are in fact near-parallel shafts of sunlight, and their apparent convergence is a perspective effect (similar, for example, to the way that parallel railway lines seem to converge at a point in the distance).

The name comes from their frequent occurrences during twilight hours (those around dawn and dusk), when the contrasts between light and dark are the most obvious. Crepuscular comes from the Latin word "crepusculum", meaning twilight.[1]
 
I think that it is relatively easy to prove that light rays are close to parallel. with a simple piece of cardboard with a couple of slits to allow light to pass through.

[huh?]

Here is a vid of how to make a simple sextant that a teacher created for a 5th grade class project.



Using this extremely simple and cheap tool and pooling observations it would be extremely easy to prove that the flat earth model is incorrect.

For grins I also set up a model in the free Sketchup program of the flat earth as I found described as the sun being 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above.

Also attached is what it would actually look like from the Southern hemisphere of earth at summer in the northern hemisphere. Even though it looks to be more than a half circle it is in fact a half circle using a 100 degree field of view and can be verified by creating your own model. It is way to high to ever appear close to the horizon.

This can also be verified by calculating the angle between the sun and the furthest point which it's light will travel in the FE model. I gestimated that the sun would never appear below 40degrees

In order for perspective to create the appearance of the sun touching the horizon a person would have to be standing a few hundred thousand miles away.

[huh?]

One could also build a scale model where 1 foot = 1000 miles then see how far away they would need to be (in feet) before the sun looked like it was touching the horizon and then multiply that distance by 1000 miles.

This would give an estimate of the distance required to make 3000 miles look like 0 miles.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.

—

Further to my interest both in this site and weather phenomena/nature etc, I came across this magnificent site (Atmospheric optics), it has in depth science married to some truly stunning photography.
Relating to this discussion specifically, the following is a good example of how the eye is tricked by perspective (make sure to scroll down) 

 http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz946.htm  anti-crepuscular laser.

And specifically to orbi’s attempt to gloss over the fact that anti-crepuscular rays negate the point he makes for crepuscular ones, the following is a full horizon montage showing both.

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz189.htm  full spread crepuscular

[andruszkow]

It's so satisfying to witness the biggest of the FE-trolls on this site become mute as soon as someone actually cares enough about shutting them up, to provide very, very simple, reproduceable facts.

I just love it. It makes the world a better place.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

It's so satisfying to witness the biggest of the FE-trolls on this site become mute as soon as someone actually cares enough about shutting them up, to provide very, very simple, reproduceable facts.

I just love it. It makes the world a better place.

Thank you Dad.

Whilst I was on the site I found a picture of something I have failed several times to get a good enough photo on my camera phone to do it justice that has a connection I think to this debate, and that is Earth shadow.
On the RE world the sun goes down, as it dips below the horizon it casts a shadow of the Earth against the atmosphere, all you need a clear evening, it's better near the summer/winter solstices as the sun sets slower but it's viewable anytime, see below.

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/earshad.htm
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/eshad3.htm

Of course this can't happen on the FE model, so what causes this phenomenon?

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Nothing Pongo, Orbi?

[Luke 22:35-38]

High altitude airplane photos of clouds disprove OP point. The shadows are in fact parallel just like train tracks.

[mikeman7918]

Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!





And you better not let any trains go on these rails, because they clearly converge and meet in the distance:



Either that or the OP is mistaken.

[Pongo]

Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!

How do you know that's sunlight?

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Desperate!

[Charming Anarchist]

Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!

How do you explain that on a round floating ball fantasy earth??