# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Intrepid Explorer on October 08, 2020, 01:24:46 AM

Title: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Intrepid Explorer on October 08, 2020, 01:24:46 AM
I know how to answer most questions about eclipses.  Equilateral triangles; flat shapes can cast round shadows, etc. etc.

But what about predicting the eclipses?  The Round Earthers can predict the paths and start and end times of solar eclipses at various locations down to the second.  What do I say when someone asks me about that?

Do we have some way of predicting eclipses?  Help!
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 08, 2020, 01:37:43 AM
This is addressed in the Wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#The_Eclipses
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Iceman on October 08, 2020, 02:01:02 AM
The wiki article provides a thorough explanation for the perceived weaknesses in astronomy - perturbations, three-body problem etc. - it is an interesting read, but does not explain how solar eclipses work on a flat earth. The solar eclipse page explains how eclipse paths look nicer on a flat earth map, agrees that the cause is the moon blocking the sun, but no other details are provided.

Are the sun and moon the same size, roughly the same height above the disk? Does it get colder during an eclipse because the cold lazer light emitted from the moon is blocking all the hot sunlight? Do the lengths of the shadow paths make sense with the orbital velocities of the two bodies above the earth's plane?

I'm not pretending to have any answers, this stuff is out of my wheelhouse, but I'm very curious how it works.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 08, 2020, 03:16:17 AM
The wiki article provides a thorough explanation for the perceived weaknesses in astronomy - perturbations, three-body problem etc. - it is an interesting read, but does not explain how solar eclipses work on a flat earth.

The Solar Eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun.

Quote
Are the sun and moon the same size, roughly the same height above the disk?

Yes, and under RE the visual diameters of the Sun and Moon are described as an "extraordinary coincidence".

A Question and Answer Guide to Astronomy, p 67, (https://books.google.com/books?id=rdAoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-_ITKmLDrAhWxmHIEHUcPBPcQ6AEwAnoECBwQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false) by engineer/astronomer Pierre-Yves Bely (bio (https://peoplepill.com/people/pierre-yves-bely/)), astrophysicist Carol Christian (bio (https://www.stsci.edu/~carolc/)), astrophysicist Jean-René Roy (bio (https://astro-canada.ca/jean_rene_roy-eng)) -

“ Is it just coincidence that the apparent diameters of the Moon and the Sun are the same?

Yes, it is a coincidence that the two diameters are the same but it was not always so. The diameter of the Sun is about 400 times that of the Moon, but the Sun is also 400 times further away from us than the Moon. The configuration leads to the same apparent diameters for both objects when seen from Earth (05°). This extraordinary coincidence grants us the opportunity to have total eclipses of our star, a majestic cosmic phenomenon that used to terrify ancient peoples. ”

Quote
Does it get colder during an eclipse because the cold lazer light emitted from the moon is blocking all the hot sunlight? Do the lengths of the shadow paths make sense with the orbital velocities of the two bodies above the earth's plane?

I'm not pretending to have any answers, this stuff is out of my wheelhouse, but I'm very curious how it works.

It was mainstream scientists from the 1800's who produced the majority of the specialized experiments suggesting that the light of the Moon cooled. Mainstream science of the 1800's used specially designed equipment, much better than the YouTubers claiming to replicate those results with home thermometers. I don't see how those experiments are pertinent, however.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: GreatATuin on October 08, 2020, 08:03:49 AM
Yes, and under RE the visual diameters of the Sun and Moon are described as an "extraordinary coincidence".

And under FE the size of the Sun and Moon being equal would need to be a coincidence too. As well as the fact that a lunar eclipse, even partial, always happens during a full Moon.

It's also a striking coincidence (without an explanation in the Wiki) that the Sun and Moon on a flat Earth have an angular size that doesn't significantly change when they're closer or further.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: AmoebaReeba on October 08, 2020, 09:13:39 AM
Quote
And under FE the size of the Sun and Moon being equal would need to be a coincidence too.

Unless the FE system was created by intelligent design. This goes back to my question (which nobody seems to want to pick up) as to whether there can be any explanation for the FE system's creation by any natural processes that don't involve a god or intelligent designer.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 08, 2020, 10:22:59 AM
Quote
And under FE the size of the Sun and Moon being equal would need to be a coincidence too.

Unless the FE system was created by intelligent design.
Fair point. The thing which really doesn't work in the FE model is the hugely varying distance of the sun and moon through the day and night with no correlated change in angular size - unlike other bodies like planets which do vary in angular size greatly as we get closer and further away. It's surely an "extraordinary coincidence" that there's some effect which makes that happen - keeps the sun the same angular size no matter the distance.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tumeni on October 08, 2020, 10:47:38 AM
Patterns which show the expected date of an eclipse don't explain how the speed of the eclipse over the surface varies according to the curve of the globe.

Here's what was predicted for the Great Solar Eclipse of 2017; note the difference in the distance covered in each 30 minute span, and how this varies as the eclipse approaches its central point of the path, and recedes away from it. Just as you would expect from a shadow moving at linear speed, but which varies on progress as it is cast on the surface of a sphere. Simple geometry.

This is what was predicted, and not one observer on the surface reported anything which differed from it.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Longtitube on October 08, 2020, 11:49:34 AM
And under FE the size of the Sun and Moon being equal would need to be a coincidence too.

But the FE sun and moon are not the same size - at an annular eclipse the sun is not completely covered by the moon and is visible behind and all around the moon: the famous “ring of fire” phenomenon. If the moon wasn’t smaller than the sun this would be impossible.

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9a3f8b199ea6df62de5a5351096b23af6e92aa9f/500_234_3388_2033/master/3388.jpg?width=300&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=0a06304ee1d5ddf4d9a3a4c17ea7887d)

RE says the moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular and it is at times closer to the Earth than others. When it is closest (perigee) and a total eclipse occurs, the period of complete blackout can occasionally last up to 7 minutes or so. If the eclipse occurs when the moon is farthest away (apogee), an annular eclipse may result.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 01:27:56 AM
There are two to five solar eclipses a year, and the annular eclipse occurs once every one or two years. You are pointing out an anomaly. I am fairly sure those astrophysicists know about the existence of the annular eclipse when they were designating the visible size of the sun and moon to be an extraordinary coincidence.

Quote
It's surely an "extraordinary coincidence" that there's some effect which makes that happen - keeps the sun the same angular size no matter the distance.

Actually, there is photographic evidence of lights staying a consistent size in the distance. This is long part of FE Theory, which is what you should familiar yourself with if you want to criticize any part of it.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I've seen the effect described in the above link many times. A receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field do not consistently shrink in a linear manner.

(https://i.imgur.com/AGP3dH1.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/7kmqF4Q.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/3AQnO7o.jpg)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 09, 2020, 03:33:43 AM
There are two to five solar eclipses a year, and the annular eclipse occurs once every one or two years. You are pointing out an anomaly. I am fairly sure those astrophysicists know about the existence of the annular eclipse when they were designating the visible size of the sun and moon to be an extraordinary coincidence.

Quote
It's surely an "extraordinary coincidence" that there's some effect which makes that happen - keeps the sun the same angular size no matter the distance.

Actually, there is photographic evidence of lights staying a consistent size in the distance. This is long part of FE Theory, which is what you should familiar yourself with if you want to criticize any part of it.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I've seen the effect described in the above link many times. A receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field do not consistently shrink in a linear manner.

(https://i.imgur.com/AGP3dH1.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/7kmqF4Q.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/3AQnO7o.jpg)

I think your examples are referring to 'glare'.

Without glare, and even with a little, sure a receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field does, absolutely, consistently shrink in a linear manner.

(https://i.imgur.com/snmQ6v6.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Mi8brq2.jpg)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 03:46:10 AM
Nope. Zoom in on the last ten lights in the last picture you posted. It's not consistently shrinking in the far field.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 09, 2020, 03:59:15 AM
Nope. Zoom in on the last ten lights in the last picture you posted. It's not consistently shrinking in the far field.

It's called glare. And what about the first 10?

And for the non-glare representation, looks pretty much receding all the way:

(https://i.imgur.com/FYbRG5G.jpg)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 04:07:38 AM
Nope. That's not the last picture you posted. The diameters of the orbs in the night scene in the far field are clearly of identical size.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 09, 2020, 04:41:05 AM
Nope. That's not the last picture you posted. The diameters of the orbs in the night scene in the far field are clearly of identical size.

I said for the "non-glare representation", meaning the one above without glare, the orbs picture above, shrinking all the way, hence the red lines.

As for the "glare" representation you're speaking of, first half of the lights are shrinking then glare totally takes over and you can't really tell what's what.

See, non-glare:

(https://i.imgur.com/Y1Xn12q.jpg)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 06:56:06 AM
That's not the photo I'm talking about, fibber.

There is a difference between light which is direct, luminous, or reflected, fogged or dimmed. This is specified in the Wiki link that it does not apply to everything. Your post provides further confirmation that the FE Theory is correct.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

So your example is specifically addressed and shows that the theory remains correct.

Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tumeni on October 09, 2020, 06:57:20 AM
Tom, what you're seeing in your photos is simply the "heliograph effect", where the emitted light can be seen at a far farther distance than the distance at which you can discern the size of the emitter or reflector. It's more pronounced at night.

Merely seeing the light is not a proof of the size of the emitter or reflector.

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

Quote
The range of a heliograph depends on the opacity of the air and the effective collecting area of the mirrors. Heliograph mirrors ranged from 1.5 inches to 12 inches or more. Stations at higher altitudes benefit from thinner, clearer air, and are required in any event for great ranges, to clear the curvature of the earth. A good approximation for ranges of 20–50 miles is that the flash of a circular mirror is visible to the naked eye for 10 miles for each inch of mirror diameter, and farther with a telescope. The world record distance was established by a detachment of U.S. signal sergeants by the inter-operation of stations on Mount Ellen, Utah, and Mount Uncompahgre, Colorado, 183 miles (295 km) apart on September 17, 1894, with Signal Corps heliographs carrying mirrors only 8 inches square.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 07:03:25 AM
Sure, that might be further evidence and another example that luminous objects don't follow the linear shrinking laws of perspective. Quite a deviation to those who say that linear shrinkage should apply to luminous objects.

The FE Theory states that this enlargement takes place on the atmosphere rather than in the eye.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: GreatATuin on October 09, 2020, 07:15:13 AM
There are two to five solar eclipses a year, and the annular eclipse occurs once every one or two years. You are pointing out an anomaly.

Annular eclipses actually outnumber total eclipses: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcatmax/SEcatmax.html . Even if they occurred once every 100 eclipses, you'd still need to account for them.

On a flat Earth, why does the Moon sometimes appear slightly larger and sometimes slightly smaller than the Sun? But never much larger nor much smaller, as would be expected when its distance from the observer varies considerably?
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 09, 2020, 07:36:26 AM
I've seen the effect described in the above link many times. A receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field do not consistently shrink in a linear manner.
Well you've deliberately picked pictures with a lot of glare, but I've helpfully gone through and annotated your pictures with the number of pixels of each light. I've just measured the width of the actual light, not the "halo" around each one. Here you go:

(https://i.ibb.co/Rbw7cGY/lights1.jpg)

Oh dear, that's not good, is it? I don't know if it's linear but it's certainly a very clear shrinking in each one.
Something not observed with the sun even when viewed through a filter.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Longtitube on October 09, 2020, 11:37:19 AM
Whether the lights shrink in a linear manner is impossible to tell from Tom’s images, since there is no distance information with them. How far from the photographer is the nearest light and what is the distance between each light? Only then can anyone build a case for non-linear shrinking, where a light twice a set distance from the photographer should halve in diameter compared to one at the set distance.

It still doesn’t answer the anomaly of an annular eclipse. The moon is still smaller in actual diameter than the sun and can completely obscure the sun when close enough to the viewer to cover it, like a nickel can hide a silver dollar if close enough to the viewer.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 03:21:38 PM
I've seen the effect described in the above link many times. A receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field do not consistently shrink in a linear manner.
Well you've deliberately picked pictures with a lot of glare, but I've helpfully gone through and annotated your pictures with the number of pixels of each light. I've just measured the width of the actual light, not the "halo" around each one. Here you go:

(https://i.ibb.co/Rbw7cGY/lights1.jpg)

Oh dear, that's not good, is it? I don't know if it's linear but it's certainly a very clear shrinking in each one.
Something not observed with the sun even when viewed through a filter.

Oh dear, you forgot to read the link again. It says that it happens to the lights in the far field and not the near field. If you put a light two inches from your eye ball, it is course going to be larger than the lights in the far field. The lights in the far field are the ones which tend to stay a consistent size.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

So, once again, you guys are verifying the FE Theory by posting these examples and failing to read the material which describes what will occur.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 09, 2020, 03:27:08 PM
The lights in the far field are the ones which tend to stay a consistent size.
Not according to the pictures you've posted which all consistently show decreasing size with distance. How embarrassing :)
You're an Occam's Razor kind of guy. What is the simplest explanation for a consistent angular size?
Is it...
a) A consistent distance
b) A huge variation in distance but some magic effect existing which maintains a consistent angular size regardless of distance?
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: GreatATuin on October 09, 2020, 04:59:28 PM
Anyway, even if that did explain the Sun's nearly constant angular size, it still wouldn't explain the Moon's nearly constant angular size. A new moon is dark, but during an eclipse we can see its angular size is sometimes slightly smaller and sometimes slightly larger than the Sun's, and not different from the angular size of a full moon.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 09, 2020, 07:23:04 PM
Sure, that might be further evidence and another example that luminous objects don't follow the linear shrinking laws of perspective. Quite a deviation to those who say that linear shrinkage should apply to luminous objects.

The FE Theory states that this enlargement takes place on the atmosphere rather than in the eye.

Time-lapse was made with a Canon 1DX Mk2 - fitted with a 70 - 200 lens and a Thousand Oaks Solar filter. Sydney, Australia. No glare, no shrinkage, which means it's really big and really far away. I'm not aware of a magical law of perspective that disregards luminous objects. Is this documented somewhere? (Other than your wiki)

(https://i.imgur.com/Begfrin.gif)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: JSS on October 09, 2020, 09:58:02 PM
Sure, that might be further evidence and another example that luminous objects don't follow the linear shrinking laws of perspective. Quite a deviation to those who say that linear shrinkage should apply to luminous objects.

The FE Theory states that this enlargement takes place on the atmosphere rather than in the eye.

Time-lapse was made with a Canon 1DX Mk2 - fitted with a 70 - 200 lens and a Thousand Oaks Solar filter. Sydney, Australia. No glare, no shrinkage, which means it's really big and really far away. I'm not aware of a magical law of perspective that disregards luminous objects. Is this documented somewhere? (Other than your wiki)

(https://i.imgur.com/Begfrin.gif)

I've taken hundreds of pictures of the Sun with filters to get nice, sharp edges and sunspots.  From all around the world, at all times of day.  High in the sky, low in the sky.

Always the same size. Every time.

Luminous objects absolutely follow the laws of perspective.

What those other pictures show, is lens flare and glare. Use the right filters and camera settings and they go away.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 10:17:43 PM
What those other pictures show, is lens flare and glare. Use the right filters and camera settings and they go away.

Incorrect. It doesn't go away when viewed through a polarized lens filter.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Quote
Polarized Lens Example

It is often asserted that the above effects are caused by glare, and that if one were to view the scene through a polarized lens the glare would be reversed. This assertion invokes an apparent absurdity: to explain the observation of consistent sizes an enlarging glare would need to seemingly intellegintly adjust itself in size, in accordance to the shrinking with perspective and distance to the observer, in order to make the bodies the same size into the distance.

If glare at is making a body 2x its size at position A, for example, a body 8x smaller at 8 times distance from position A would be required to have a glare of 16x to match the glare at position A, which is eight fold increase of the initial ratio. It is questionable how 'glare' could know where the observer is, in order to cause bodies to maintain their sizes into the distance.

With polarized lenses the 'glare' does not shrink. Take a look at this video and demo of a popular pair of polarized glasses for night driving at the 4:52 mark. (https://youtu.be/G-lejCyjV4I?t=4m52s)

We see that there is a car in the distance with headlights that overlap each other:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/e/ee/Before_Polarized.png/650px-Before_Polarized.png)

Now when he applies the polarized lens -- the headlights still overlap:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/d/d0/After_Polarized.png/650px-After_Polarized.png)

Continue watching the video to verify that the object in question is indeed a car.

From the video description:

“ ✔ Polarized 100% UV 400 anti-glare lenses protect your eyes and ensure clarity and control by transforming distorted and distracting light into a crystal clear view ”
—Bluepond Knight Visor

A member of our forum, Thork, says: (https://web.archive.org/web/20190417020649/https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9985.msg156452)

“ I have a actually have a set of those night driving glasses. ...You hold them out over a body of water, for me a small stream. Then turn them 90 degrees. When you do this, suddenly you can't see through the water any more because of the reflection. They are 100% polarised. ”

Polarized Lens Example II

Another example similar to the above is shown in the following video at the 3:06 mark:

HD Night Vision Glasses With Polarized Lenses for Men and Woman By Soxick (https://youtu.be/4jtMWXz44k8?t=3m6s)

On the left hand approaching lane there is a car in the distance with headlights which overlap each other. The headlight of the approaching car are magnified and overlap, both when seen through the polarized lens and without the lens.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 09, 2020, 10:38:40 PM
What those other pictures show, is lens flare and glare. Use the right filters and camera settings and they go away.

Incorrect. It doesn't go away when viewed through a polarized lens filter.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Quote
Polarized Lens Example

It is often asserted that the above effects are caused by glare, and that if one were to view the scene through a polarized lens the glare would be reversed. This assertion invokes an apparent absurdity: to explain the observation of consistent sizes an enlarging glare would need to seemingly intellegintly adjust itself in size, in accordance to the shrinking with perspective and distance to the observer, in order to make the bodies the same size into the distance.

If glare at is making a body 2x its size at position A, for example, a body 8x smaller at 8 times distance from position A would be required to have a glare of 16x to match the glare at position A, which is eight fold increase of the initial ratio. It is questionable how 'glare' could know where the observer is, in order to cause bodies to maintain their sizes into the distance.

With polarized lenses the 'glare' does not shrink. Take a look at this video and demo of a popular pair of polarized glasses for night driving at the 4:52 mark. (https://youtu.be/G-lejCyjV4I?t=4m52s)

We see that there is a car in the distance with headlights that overlap each other:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/e/ee/Before_Polarized.png/650px-Before_Polarized.png)

Now when he applies the polarized lens -- the headlights still overlap:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/d/d0/After_Polarized.png/650px-After_Polarized.png)

Continue watching the video to verify that the object in question is indeed a car.

From the video description:

“ ✔ Polarized 100% UV 400 anti-glare lenses protect your eyes and ensure clarity and control by transforming distorted and distracting light into a crystal clear view ”
—Bluepond Knight Visor

A member of our forum, Thork, says: (https://web.archive.org/web/20190417020649/https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9985.msg156452)

“ I have a actually have a set of those night driving glasses. ...You hold them out over a body of water, for me a small stream. Then turn them 90 degrees. When you do this, suddenly you can't see through the water any more because of the reflection. They are 100% polarised. ”

Polarized Lens Example II

Another example similar to the above is shown in the following video at the 3:06 mark:

HD Night Vision Glasses With Polarized Lenses for Men and Woman By Soxick (https://youtu.be/4jtMWXz44k8?t=3m6s)

On the left hand approaching lane there is a car in the distance with headlights which overlap each other. The headlight of the approaching car are magnified and overlap, both when seen through the polarized lens and without the lens.

What do polarizing filters have to do with anything? They have little to no impact on nighttime glare. Why are you even mentioning them?
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 10:46:08 PM
Research more. Polarized filters are used to reduce glare.

https://youtu.be/6Anskk4W7Ms
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: JSS on October 09, 2020, 10:52:49 PM
What those other pictures show, is lens flare and glare. Use the right filters and camera settings and they go away.

Incorrect. It doesn't go away when viewed through a polarized lens filter.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I didn't say use a polarized filter.  A polarized filter isn't going to help on over exposed image, that's the wrong filter in this situation so of course it does nothing.  You need to use an ND filter or simply adjust the camera's exposure settings.

Here, I just took a picture of a floodlamp on the side of the building with two different camera settings.

(https://i.imgur.com/LuSacwh.jpg)

See how the light is 'larger' when over exposed, and is the correct size once you crank up the shutter speed?

No polarized filter needed, just setting the exposure to capture the actual light and not a huge over-exposed blob. This is what is causing the images of far away lights to look large, it's just an over exposes sensor, and easily corrected.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 10:57:24 PM
No, adjusting the exposure settings is equivalent to adjusting the brightness and contrast settings in an image editor. Your assertion would only have merit if the sun was impervious to exposure or contrast adjustments, which it is not impervious.

There is an example of that with the Sun in the wiki link:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c0/Solar_eclipse_brightness.gif)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 09, 2020, 11:00:19 PM
Research more. Polarized filters are used to reduce glare.

https://youtu.be/6Anskk4W7Ms

Polarizing filters have nothing to do with this. Any self respecting photographer will know that a polarizing filter isn't going to do much to reduce the starburst effect on, for example, nighttime streetlights, especially depending upon aperture and exposure duration. They are great for shooting through glass and diminishing reflection or teasing out a blue sky on a high contrast day, but the instances you are trying to apply them to are neither here nor there.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 11:02:17 PM
Research more. Polarized filters are used to reduce glare.

https://youtu.be/6Anskk4W7Ms

Polarizing filters have nothing to do with this. Any self respecting photographer will know that a polarizing filter isn't going to do much to reduce the starburst effect on, for example, nighttime streetlights, especially depending upon aperture and exposure duration. They are great for shooting through glass and diminishing reflection or teasing out a blue sky on a high contrast day, but the instances you are trying to apply them to are neither here nor there.

The author of that video, as well as many easily found sources, state that polarized filters are used to reduce glare. You are incorrect that they have nothing to do with reducing glare.

Quoting yourself as authority, and providing zero sources to back yourself up. Funny and typical.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 09, 2020, 11:05:05 PM
No, adjusting the exposure settings is equivalent to adjusting the brightness and contrast settings in an image editor. Your assertion would only have merit if the sun was impervious to exposure or contrast adjustments, which it is not impervious.

There is an example of that with the Sun in the wiki link:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c0/Solar_eclipse_brightness.gif)

If you want to simulate a polarizing effect, it's not just brightness and contrast. That's a silly comparison.

"Understanding how this polarizing effect works"
https://www.photoshoptutorials.ws/other-tutorials/photography-tutorials/polarizing-filter/
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 11:07:03 PM
If you want to simulate a polarizing effect, it's not just brightness and contrast. That's a silly comparison.

"Understanding how this polarizing effect works"
https://www.photoshoptutorials.ws/other-tutorials/photography-tutorials/polarizing-filter/

We are not trying to simulate a polarizing effect. The person I responded to conceded on that issue and says that we need to adjust the exposure instead.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 09, 2020, 11:09:35 PM
Research more. Polarized filters are used to reduce glare.

https://youtu.be/6Anskk4W7Ms

Polarizing filters have nothing to do with this. Any self respecting photographer will know that a polarizing filter isn't going to do much to reduce the starburst effect on, for example, nighttime streetlights, especially depending upon aperture and exposure duration. They are great for shooting through glass and diminishing reflection or teasing out a blue sky on a high contrast day, but the instances you are trying to apply them to are neither here nor there.

The author of that video, as well as many easily found sources, state that polarized filters are used to reduce glare. You are incorrect that they have nothing to do with reducing glare.

Quoting yourself as authority, and providing zero sources to back yourself up. Funny and typical.

Sure, it can reduce glare, minimally, very minimally, very, very minimally in nighttime photography. But that is not their purpose.

I didn't claim to be an authority, just that those who are and know anything about the myriad filters and their specific usage in photography know that a polarizing filter is not going to wipe out the starburst from nighttime streetlight shots. Polarizing filters have literally no relevance to your argument. You wasted a lot of time throwing all that into the wiki when it means nothing.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: JSS on October 09, 2020, 11:09:50 PM
No, adjusting the exposure settings is equivalent to adjusting the brightness and contrast settings in an image editor. Your assertion would only have merit if the sun was impervious to exposure or contrast adjustments, which it is not impervious.

There is an example of that with the Sun in the wiki link:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

No, this is demonstrably wrong.  Adjusting the exposure settings of a camera is NOT the same as adjusting the captured image in Photoshop.  Photoshop can not restore detail the camera never captured, and an over exposed image has lost data, that's why it's just a white blob, the sensor is maxed out over that entire circle.

This is easy to see for yourself. Load my sample image into Photoshop or Paint and try and use contrast and brightness to make either side look like that other.  You can't because it is NOT THE SAME as a cameras exposure settings.

If it were daytime I could use the Sun as an example, perhaps I'll take some pictures tomorrow to demonstrate when the Sun is back overhead.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 09, 2020, 11:27:33 PM
This is easy to see for yourself. Load my sample image into Photoshop or Paint and try and use contrast and brightness to make either side look like that other.  You can't because it is NOT THE SAME as a cameras exposure settings.
Well, yes, you'd probably want to use Lightroom's exposure setting to more accurately mimic a real camera's exposure.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: JSS on October 09, 2020, 11:30:39 PM
This is easy to see for yourself. Load my sample image into Photoshop or Paint and try and use contrast and brightness to make either side look like that other.  You can't because it is NOT THE SAME as a cameras exposure settings.
Well, yes, you'd probably want to use Lightroom's exposure setting to more accurately mimic a real camera's exposure.

Lightroom won't work either, you are welcome to try it for yourself.  It's not a matter of what program you use or how good it is at modeling a camera, a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.

I really suggest trying with my sample image.  You won't be able to extract the shape of the light from the over exposed image, and you can't make a matching white circle from the correctly exposed image.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 09, 2020, 11:33:07 PM
If you want to simulate a polarizing effect, it's not just brightness and contrast. That's a silly comparison.

"Understanding how this polarizing effect works"
https://www.photoshoptutorials.ws/other-tutorials/photography-tutorials/polarizing-filter/

We are not trying to simulate a polarizing effect. The person I responded to conceded on that issue and says that we need to adjust the exposure instead.

Huh? This is so bizarre. You manufactured this whole thing about how luminous objects are somehow immune to the laws of perspective. Then have this whole other weird strawman thing about polarizing filters which is completely irrelevant. Fact of the matter, things appear to get smaller as they move further away due to perspective. And just look at things that don't have starburst glare and they get smaller as they move away. It's as simple as that. The sun just plain doesn't get smaller as it dips below the horizon. That is an observable fact as well. Here's how perspective would work  with a close sun, or in this example, an equally close and small moon:

(https://i.imgur.com/leVAoy4.gif)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 09, 2020, 11:36:30 PM
This is easy to see for yourself. Load my sample image into Photoshop or Paint and try and use contrast and brightness to make either side look like that other.  You can't because it is NOT THE SAME as a cameras exposure settings.
Well, yes, you'd probably want to use Lightroom's exposure setting to more accurately mimic a real camera's exposure.

First rule in photography is to always slightly underexpose. As we all know, no matter the sophistication of out post processing software, we can't bring in data that wasn't captured in the first place.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: JSS on October 10, 2020, 01:12:39 AM
I thought I would take a picture that was similar to the ones Tom posted.

Here are two pictures of the same location at night, one at the top with a long exposure time, and the bottom with a short exposure time.

You can clearly see with the over-exposed image on top the lights LOOK bigger.

But with the shorter exposure you can now see the actual shape and size of the lamps.

This is what is going on with the pictures Tom posted, the camera is over-exposing the streetlights and car headlights. So the picture isn't in fact showing the lights, it's just the camera sensor being maxed out.

Just to make things clear, when a picture is over-exposed you are not seeing real objects, those are just areas of the sensor that have been maxed out by too much light.

You also can not use Lightroom to take the top picture and get the correct lamp shape with contrast and brightness sliders. I encourage everyone to try it and see what happens, using software of your own choosing. It's simply not possible.

(https://i.imgur.com/OM5Tsgj.jpg)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 01:41:24 AM
The pictures I provided were with a Pixel3 camera on default settings. I did not over-expose the settings. And there is no reason for why over-exposure should cause lights to stay the same size in the distance.

The picture you provided does not show the constant sizing effect, and is therefore irrelevant. You are are spuriously suggesting that the effect seen was this effect, but have not provided sufficient evidence of this.

- You have no pictures of the constant sizing effect
- You have not shown that the sun is impervious to over-exposure adjustments

The pictures you do provide all have different sizes of blots, which correlate with the different sizes of the bulbs.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: JSS on October 10, 2020, 01:44:04 AM
The pictures I provided on the previous page was with a Pixel3 camera on default settings. I did not over-expose the settings. And there is no reason for why over-exposure should cause lights to stay the same size in the distance.

Look at the car headlights in the bottom left, that is overexposed, unless the headlights really are larger than the entire car.  Does it also mean that X shape is the real shape of the headlight?  Clearly we are not seeing the actual headlight here. We are seeing a washed out portion of the camera sensor.

I'm not sure what you mean by the lights being the same size, the orange streetlight at the top is clearly larger than the streetlights at the bottom.

(https://i.imgur.com/AGP3dH1.jpg)

The picture you provided does not show the constant sizing effect, and is therefore irrelevant. You are are spuriously suggesting that the effect seen was this effect, but have not provided sufficient evidence of this.

What constant sizing effect?  My photo was to show how overexposing an image makes the lights take on a false shape and size, exactly what is happening in your pictures. Your pictures are not showing the true size of the lights just as my top one is not.

How do my images not prove that overexposing a light changes it's apparent shape?  It shows exactly that.

Are you claiming that if we take stack's daytime picture of the lights which did shrink to perspective, that if we overexpose it that the lights in the far field will be the same size? Nonsense.

I'm not claiming anything of the sort.  What I am claiming is if he took that picture at night you wouldn't be able to tell the true shape and size of the lights. Just like in my top picture, and just like in your pictures. The actual shape will depend on the lighting, camera settings, lens used and sensor sensitivity.

To sum up, what I am saying is when you overexpose a light source, you no longer can use it to measure it's true size or shape.  The lights on top are NOT the real shap, just as the lights in Tom's images are not their real shape or size.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: GreatATuin on October 10, 2020, 06:00:29 AM
Tom, if that's the explanation for the Sun's almost constant angular size, then what's the explanation for the Moon's almost constant angular size, even when it's not luminous at all (eg during an eclipse) or a very thin crescent?
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Longtitube on October 10, 2020, 08:42:45 AM
The pictures I provided were with a Pixel3 camera on default settings. I did not over-expose the settings.

Of course you didn’t over-expose the lights. The camera in your Pixel3 did.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2020, 01:06:46 PM
a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.
The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.

First rule in photography is to always slightly underexpose. As we all know, no matter the sophistication of out post processing software, we can't bring in data that wasn't captured in the first place.
Yes.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: JSS on October 10, 2020, 04:58:24 PM
a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.
The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.

I never said it did.  The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.

Which is the point, you can't measure overexposed lights and assume that's how big the actual lights are.  His photos are not showing lights that don't obey the laws of perspective, they simply have overexposed light sources in them.

(https://i.imgur.com/JGoxHor.png)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 10, 2020, 07:16:18 PM
The pictures I provided were with a Pixel3 camera on default settings. I did not over-expose the settings. And there is no reason for why over-exposure should cause lights to stay the same size in the distance.
That isn’t what your images show. I have already shown that, the lights in all 3 pictures get smaller as the row of lights get further away.
Because of the angle you took them at the furthest lights are an overlapping mess, you can’t really tell how big they are.

You really haven’t presented anything of note in this thread. You’ve posted some pictures which don’t show what you claim. Then you’ve talked about polarising filters which don’t do what you think they do. Even if they do reduce glare, “reduce” does not mean the same as “eliminate”.

You’ve ignored questions about why the moon’s angular size stays (approximately) same during and eclipse or at new moon - when it is not bright. And you’ve ignored the point about Occam’s razor. What is the simplest explanation for the sun to remain a constant angular size?

Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2020, 07:17:50 PM
I never said it did.
Oh, so you were wasting our time. Again.

Please don't do that.

The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.
You know, claiming to be able to see cars and streetlights on the Sun's surface might just be a new low for you.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 07:19:53 PM
Quote
That isn’t what your images show. I have already shown that, the lights in all 3 pictures get smaller as the row of lights get further away.

Actually, your pictures confirm that the lights are not consistently shrinking into the distance. The first four lights nearest to the camera shrink more than the last four lights in the scene, as you labeled yourself in pixels.

(https://i.ibb.co/Rbw7cGY/lights1.jpg)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: JSS on October 10, 2020, 07:29:29 PM
The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.
You know, claiming to be able to see cars and streetlights on the Sun's surface might just be a new low for you.

When did I say you can see cars on the Sun?  I even included the part of the photograph I was talking about just to be clear, as quoted below.  I never mentioned the Sun in that reply.

My point is you can't accurately measure the size of lights on a picture that is overexposed.  That picture Tom presented of a street is overexposing the car and streetlights.

I never said it did.  The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.

Which is the point, you can't measure overexposed lights and assume that's how big the actual lights are.  His photos are not showing lights that don't obey the laws of perspective, they simply have overexposed light sources in them.

(https://i.imgur.com/JGoxHor.png)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 10, 2020, 07:34:08 PM
Actually, your pictures confirm that the lights are not consistently shrinking into the distance.

I never said consistently.
There seems to be a fair amount of glare, there’s no way of knowing the distances involved and pixels on an image that size is a very crude measure.

The point you keep ignoring is that the lights are shrinking with distance, as all objects do. The sun does not. Occam’s razor surely tells you that is because the distance to it remains constant.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2020, 08:27:19 PM
When did I say you can see cars on the Sun?
Well, let's see. As always, context is key. I don't trust you to get it right, so I'll spell it out and provide links. My post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222784#msg222784) quotes a post of yours (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222783#msg222783), which in turn quotes a post by Tom (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222777#msg222777).

That last post includes an image:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c0/Solar_eclipse_brightness.gif)

There can be no doubt that this is the picture you're critiquing. After all, it clearly illustrates someone using the contrast slider in Photoshop, and our conversation directly references that slider in multiple places.

Please, could you point towards the cars and street lights present in the picture you're currently critiquing? Personally, I can't see any, and I have a sneaking suspicion that neither can you. It seems likely to me that your claims are just a cheap attempt at distraction.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: JSS on October 10, 2020, 09:16:39 PM
When did I say you can see cars on the Sun?
Well, let's see. As always, context is key. I don't trust you to get it right, so I'll spell it out and provide links. My post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222784#msg222784) quotes a post of yours (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222783#msg222783), which in turn quotes a post by Tom (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222777#msg222777).

That last post includes an image:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c0/Solar_eclipse_brightness.gif)

There can be no doubt that this is the picture you're critiquing. After all, it clearly illustrates someone using the contrast slider in Photoshop, and our conversation directly references that slider in multiple places.

Please, could you point towards the cars and street lights present in the picture you're currently critiquing? Personally, I can't see any, and I have a sneaking suspicion that neither can you. It seems likely to me that your claims are just a cheap attempt at distraction.

You said I was saying you could see cars on the Sun in this post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222864#msg222864) which referenced my post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222845#msg222845) which included the actual picture I was talking about.  Cars on the street, not the Sun.

To make sure there are no understandings, the post quoted below is what you replied to, and you can clearly see the picture I included that has cars and streetlights. I did the same with the full image in this post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222801#msg222801) earlier in the discussion, so I thought it was clear what picture I was talking about.

There are several images being discussed in this thread, which is why I included the one I was critiquing, to try and avoid any confusion. If I got confused over which one you were referring to at some point, then that is my mistake.

a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.
The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.

I never said it did.  The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.

Which is the point, you can't measure overexposed lights and assume that's how big the actual lights are.  His photos are not showing lights that don't obey the laws of perspective, they simply have overexposed light sources in them.

(https://i.imgur.com/JGoxHor.png)
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2020, 09:18:36 PM
You said I was saying you could see cars on the Sun in this post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222864#msg222864)
I didn't. I very specifically addressed only one of your posts. You were dishonest in trying to shift the goalposts, and apparently you chose to ignore my attempts at pointing out just how far off-base you were. It's not that I'm surprised, but I have to enforce some standards here. Don't try that again. Trolling this obvious will not be allowed here.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tumeni on October 10, 2020, 10:07:58 PM
The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.

Yes, that's the point.

The lights are overexposed because the scene is predominantly dark, the default setting that Tom used makes an exposure based on the average brightness of the scene, and the lights, which form a small percentage of the total scene, are overexposed.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 10, 2020, 10:19:54 PM
You said I was saying you could see cars on the Sun in this post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222864#msg222864)
I didn't. I very specifically addressed only one of your posts. You were dishonest in trying to shift the goalposts, and apparently you chose to ignore my attempts at pointing out just how far off-base you were. It's not that I'm surprised, but I have to enforce some standards here. Don't try that again. Trolling this obvious will not be allowed here.

I'm confused. We've been using streetlights, car lights and the sun as examples of glare, why it happens, can it be corrected for, etc. I don't see any goalposts moving about. The point is that glare (where that light source portion of the image is overexposed upon the sensor) hides the true size and shape to some degree of the luminous object in question. And that messing around with polarizing filters and post production tweaks in LR or PS or the like aren't going to reveal something that was blownout and not captured in the first place.

So all that being the case, we still see these luminous objects (streetlight, headlight examples) getting smaller as they move further away even with some glare. And as for the Sun itself, we don't observe it getting smaller as it sets (In FE, moving further away). Which all could lead one to believe the Sun is very large and very far away as its observable angular size does not change throughout the day. That's what all I think we're talking about here. Did I miss something?
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 11, 2020, 12:07:59 AM
I'm confused.

[...]

Did I miss something?
Yes. You seemingly missed the part where JSS chose to discuss an image of the Sun by rambling about street lights. I understand that it's a cornerstone of RE desperation to pretend that context doesn't exist, but, again, that won't be tolerated here - we have to maintain a modicum of decency here, and pretending that the Sun is the same as the headlights of a car simply won't do. If you choose to criticise an argument regarding photographs of the Sun, please make sure you're not arguing about street lights or cars. Those are unlikely to be found on the Sun. I hope this helps resolve your confusion.

Yes, that's the point.

The lights are overexposed
Tumeni, forgive me for bringing up your track record here, but you are extremely unlikely to know what "the point" is. Case in point: you claim that a photograph of nothing but the Sun has "lights" (plural) in it, or that any of them are overexposed.

We've long established that you either can't read or are incapable of presenting an honest thought. It's probably time for you to move on.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: stack on October 11, 2020, 12:40:19 AM
I'm confused.

[...]

Did I miss something?
Yes. You seemingly missed the part where JSS chose to discuss an image of the Sun by rambling about street lights. I understand that it's a cornerstone of RE desperation to pretend that context doesn't exist, but, again, that won't be tolerated here - we have to maintain a modicum of decency here, and pretending that the Sun is the same as the headlights of a car simply won't do. If you choose to criticise an argument regarding photographs of the Sun, please make sure you're not arguing about street lights or cars. Those are unlikely to be found on the Sun. I hope this helps resolve your confusion.

Actually, I think you are the one who is mistaken and may have missed a bit earlier on in the thread. Tom was the one who switched us over to streetlights way back on the first page, response #9, when he went from the Sun to:

"Actually, there is photographic evidence of lights staying a consistent size in the distance. This is long part of FE Theory, which is what you should familiar yourself with if you want to criticize any part of it.”

And posted a wiki link and a few pictures of street lights to make his point.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222694#msg222694

So, ostensibly, Tom is the one who put street lights on the Sun, as it were. And yes, I agree, they are unlikely to be found there. Additionally, for some odd reason, he went on to convey the truth in advertising, or lack thereof, when it comes to anti-glare nighttime polarized glasses. So there’s that.

So yeah, we’ve been going back and forth between the Sun/Eclipses, headlights, street lights, and spectacles that don’t do what they claim to do. All of which trying to tease out whether luminous objects shrink in observable size as they get farther away. And again, they do shrink unless they are massive and really far away, like the Sun.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 11, 2020, 08:32:21 AM
So yeah, we’ve been going back and forth between the Sun/Eclipses, headlights, street lights, and spectacles that don’t do what they claim to do.
Going back and forth is fine. Pretending they're one and the same is not. You appear to agree.

If your objection is that the method Tom presented will work on some images (including the specific one he used for this), but not others, you should say that. Saying that it won't work while discussing an example in which it blatantly just worked is disingenuous, and an obvious attempt at distraction.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 12:04:45 PM
Tumeni, ... you claim that a photograph of nothing but the Sun has "lights" (plural) in it, or that any of them are overexposed.

I haven't said anything about the Sun photo(s) in this thread. I've only discussed the photos of streetlights, taken at night, and Heliographs.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 11, 2020, 04:19:45 PM
I addressed a very specific scenario - the GIF featuring the Sun. I was informed that I was wrong in my claims. When I inquired why, I was presented with a bunch of arguments about cars and street lights. If you don't see how that's changing the topic, I can't help you.

I can, however, point out that this kind of petty trolling is extremely common for you two, and I can assure you that it will not continue. If you can't post on topic, don't post.
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 05:09:39 PM
I addressed a very specific scenario - the GIF featuring the Sun. I was informed that I was wrong in my claims. When I inquired why, I was presented with a bunch of arguments about cars and street lights. If you don't see how that's changing the topic, I can't help you.

I can, however, point out that this kind of petty trolling is extremely common for you two, and I can assure you that it will not continue. If you can't post on topic, don't post.

I was posting about the streetlights before you joined in, and I continued to do so. I haven't addressed the sun picture anywhere, and took it that you, when you didn't specify which picture of Tom's you were referring to, were also addressing the streetlights. It's clear now that you were referring to the sun picture, not the streetlights. Now that you've said so.

Honestly, if you're going to look for "trolling" in even the slightest misunderstanding  ....
Title: Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
Post by: JSS on October 14, 2020, 04:20:57 PM
No, adjusting the exposure settings is equivalent to adjusting the brightness and contrast settings in an image editor. Your assertion would only have merit if the sun was impervious to exposure or contrast adjustments, which it is not impervious.

I finally got a sunny day, so as promised, here are two pictures I just took.  One that has the Sun overexposed, and the second which has the correct in-camera adjustments.

I'm posting this to demonstrate that adjusting the cameras exposure settings is NOT equivalent to adjusting the brightness and contrast settings in an image editor as Tom claims.

Feel free to load this image into Photoshop or Lightroom and adjust the brightness and contrast.  You will never be able to turn the left image into the right image no matter what settings or adjustments you use. The data simply doesn't exist in the left side image, it's overexposed and no amount of image balancing can bring it back.

Conversely, you can't turn the right side image into the left side one by adjusting the brightness. You will never be able to make these two images look the same. The only way to make them is to adjust the camera settings when taking the pictures as I did.

(https://i.imgur.com/ANgcDSP.jpg)