[rabinoz]

fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.

Surely you are not still pushing the "known magnification effect" as the mechanism for keeping the sun the same size from sun rise to overhead.
That effect could hardly apply to the moon, which is much dimmer (a factor of about 360,000) but has features that are clearly visible when near the horizon and near overhead.  The following 3 photos were taken recently and show the moon at three quite different altitudes (on different days):

Date: 22nd May, 2016 Time: 17:42 Moon at Alt 2.1°, Az 107.6°

Date: 24th May 2016 Time 19:36 Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.52° at - 1600mm

Date 19th May 2016 Time 22:08 Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.52° at - 1600mm

I am sure that the focal length in the right two is 1,600 mm (at 6.3° and 71.5° altitude), but I am not certain of the on one the left (at 2.1° altitude) - I'll repeat it next full moon.

The moon stays essentially the same size from the moon rising to setting, and I cannot see how that can be attributed to "glare"!

[Tom Bishop]

fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.

Wow where to begin?  If the lighthouse is not directing 1,000,000 candela's, that does not mean it is not emitting 1,000,000 candela's.  How many candela's is this lighthouse purported to be emitting?  How far away is the lighthouse being filmed from?  How does a lighthouse not emitting 1,000,000 candela's exclude it from being as powerful as a headlight which is approximately 4 orders of magnitude dimmer, on average, than the upper limit of lighthouse brightness?

You have no rebutted anything that I have put forth.

Light houses are directional. They have a lens in them. They don't shine in all areas at once. Looking at the light house from the side may produce a glow, but you won't feel the full brunt of the beam unless it shines directly at you.

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

[Tom Bishop]

The moon stays essentially the same size from the moon rising to setting, and I cannot see how that can be attributed to "glare"!

The moon is very bright, but somewhat dimmed after the light passes through the atmosphere. It's the second brightest object in the sky apart from the sun.

[Rama Set]

fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.

Wow where to begin?  If the lighthouse is not directing 1,000,000 candela's, that does not mean it is not emitting 1,000,000 candela's.  How many candela's is this lighthouse purported to be emitting?  How far away is the lighthouse being filmed from?  How does a lighthouse not emitting 1,000,000 candela's exclude it from being as powerful as a headlight which is approximately 4 orders of magnitude dimmer, on average, than the upper limit of lighthouse brightness?

You have no rebutted anything that I have put forth.

Light houses are directional. They have a lens in them. They don't shine in all areas at once. Looking at the light house from the side may produce a glow, but you won't feel the full brunt of the beam unless it shines directly at you.

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

At what point is a lighthouse dimmer than a headlight?

[andruszkow]

Lighthouses are built to look different depending from which bearing you observe it from.

[rabinoz]

The moon stays essentially the same size from the moon rising to setting, and I cannot see how that can be attributed to "glare"!

The moon is very bright, but somewhat dimmed after the light passes through the atmosphere. It's the second brightest object in the sky apart from the sun.

And your magic glare magnification keeps the moon's size to that predicted by the Globe model, while preserving the features perfectly!

Please show some evidence that the "Bishop Glare Effect", as we now should call can cause magnification without losing detail!
But, you have never given a convincing reason how the "Flat Earth Moon" could ever get down near the horizon anyway.
There is absolutely no way tat perspective can do it! And, as I have tried to point out even Rowbotham's "Law of Perspective" does not allow this either.

I know that in another place he claims that perspective causes the sun and moon to "seem to set behind the horizon", but . . . . . . . . . . .

And if you can put this sunrise and sunset down to "perspective" and "glare", you will be pleased to hear that I give up.

https://d43fweuh3sg51.cloudfront.net/media/media_files/ess05_vid_riseset-PBS_LM_4x3_mezzanine-4x3-mp4-1200k_1.mp4

[TotesNotReptilian]

This thread has gotten a bit off topic in arguing about Lighthouse brightness.

At this point, I think it is safe to say that Tom Bishop has absolutely no evidence to support his absurd theory that "lights stay the same apparent size as they get farther away".

Tom Bishop: If you have actual evidence, now is the time to show it! (please actually take the time to do some measuring before you post more videos that contradict your theory)

Other flat earthers: Does ANYONE have another theory as to why the sun doesn't get smaller as it gets farther away from us? If not, ask yourself: can you honestly continue believing in a theory that so obviously contradicts reality?

[CableDawg]

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

Come on Tom.  Answer the question.

How is it that light intensity and "catching on the atmosphere" relevant in one of your provided proofs yet doesn't seem to be relevant in the other of your provided proofs, even though they both contain images of automobile headlights, which you contend are of high enough intensity to "catch on the atmosphere".

This is not a difficult question to answer.  You provided two supposed proofs for the same concept yet they prove nothing (individually or combined) and one is directly counter to what you are saying is fact.

[rabinoz]

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

I thought this sight "worked on evidence" - so now being "mentioned on our Wiki page" is evidence?

Please present some physical mechanism (with evidence) that this effect (if it exists) could somehow magically magnify objects in such a way that they stay exactly the same size as they recede AND retain their detail. Yes, I know the moon can change slightly in size, but by just the amount predicted by the Globe Earth Model!

I have never seen any evidence that "glare" can magnify anything while retaining its detail, and you NEVER even address this aspect.

20160524 19:36 - Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.516° at - 1600mm

20160519 22:08 - Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.511° at - 1600mm

Note that in both photos the moon's detail is quite apparent. Yes, the left photo might be a bit redder (but that could be just exposure), but the detail in not much different.

Nothing you have shown, and nothing the Wiki or from Rowbotham gives actual evidence, they just state it.

Really though, Hans Christian Anderson wrote better fairy tales.

[Tom Bishop]

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

Come on Tom.  Answer the question.

How is it that light intensity and "catching on the atmosphere" relevant in one of your provided proofs yet doesn't seem to be relevant in the other of your provided proofs, even though they both contain images of automobile headlights, which you contend are of high enough intensity to "catch on the atmosphere".

This is not a difficult question to answer.  You provided two supposed proofs for the same concept yet they prove nothing (individually or combined) and one is directly counter to what you are saying is fact.

It's relevant in all images. If the light source isn't bright enough, it can't catch onto the atmosphere and enlarge. Different photographs at different angles or conditions may cause some light sources not to enlarge, such as when viewing the glow of a light house from its backside when it is shining its directed beam at the ocean.

A picture of a dim light which is not being magnified is not a counter-proof. In the image of magnified lights we see that the less intense light sources in the distance are not being magnified.

I thought this sight "worked on evidence" - so now being "mentioned on our Wiki page" is evidence?

Yes, the images in the Wiki are evidence. Some light sources, such as the headlights, are magnified, and some dimmer light sources, such as the light from the pavement and small objects in the distance, are not magnified.

Consider the following image from the Wiki:



 The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see. The headlights are bright, and therefore the magnification effect occurs. Other objects in this scene, are not as bright as the headlights, such as the tail lights of the cars moving away, and therefore naturally shrink. This is evidence that brighter light sources magnifiy and dimmer light sources do not.

Please present some physical mechanism (with evidence) that this effect (if it exists) could somehow magically magnify objects in such a way that they stay exactly the same size as they recede AND retain their detail.

We are only seeing examples of light bulbs in the distance, and therefore they do not much detail to them. Perhaps if a very bright and powerful projector were put in the distance and pointed at the camera, with enough lumens to cause the effects demonstrated in this thread, the effect would occur.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't magically become true. It has been pointed out to you MANY times already. The headlights are NOT the same size all the way down the highway. Please open up some image processing software and count the pixels yourself, so you don't keep posting false information. I recommend GIMP if you don't want to spend money on Photoshop.

Please present some physical mechanism (with evidence) that this effect (if it exists) could somehow magically magnify objects in such a way that they stay exactly the same size as they recede AND retain their detail.

We are only seeing examples of light bulbs in the distance, and therefore they do not much detail to them. Perhaps if a very bright and powerful projector were put in the distance and pointed at the camera, with enough lumens to cause the effects demonstrated in this thread, the effect would occur.

"Perhaps" is the key word. You have absolutely zero evidence to show that this happens, and no logical reason why it would happen. It's just a desperate attempt to explain away observations that contradict the flat earth model.

[Tom Bishop]

The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't magically become true. It has been pointed out to you MANY times already. The headlights are NOT the same size all the way down the highway. Please open up some image processing software and count the pixels yourself, so you don't keep posting false information. I recommend GIMP if you don't want to spend money on Photoshop.

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

[Rama Set]

So your standard is, "looks close enough!"  That's terrible. Just terrible.

[garygreen]

 The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see. The headlights are bright, and therefore the magnification effect occurs. Other objects in this scene, are not as bright as the headlights, such as the tail lights of the cars moving away, and therefore naturally shrink. This is evidence that brighter light sources magnifiy and dimmer light sources do not.

All measurements are experiments. Your experiment does not control for the angle of orientation of the light source. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you go back to middle school and learn some science.

[TotesNotReptilian]

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

So now you are trying to give excuses as to why your only piece of evidence doesn't support your theory? If it doesn't support your theory, it can't be used as evidence. Find different evidence that you don't have to provide excuses for.

It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

No one denies that the size of the lights don't stay proportional to the size of the car. It is called glare. It is a well understood, noncontroversial photographic phenomena. However, in order to be evidence for your theory, it needs to appear more than just "slightly bigger than expected". It needs to:

1. Appear the same size regardless of distance.
2. Details of the object being "magnified" must be preserved.

None of your "evidence" shows this. Therefore, you have no evidence to support your theory. You don't even have a logical reason as to WHY it would happen.

[rabinoz]

The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't magically become true. It has been pointed out to you MANY times already. The headlights are NOT the same size all the way down the highway. Please open up some image processing software and count the pixels yourself, so you don't keep posting false information. I recommend GIMP if you don't want to spend money on Photoshop.

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

Tom, just why do you never address the issue that the apparent "magnification" by glare could never retain the detail of the objects "magnified".

Even in the case of the sun, the glare can be readily removed by a suitable filter shown sunspots an other features on the sun.

True, in the last few 5 or 10 degrees before sunset detail is often gradually lost due the longer light travel in the atmosphere, but in many of these cases the sharp round  disc of the sun is often retained, quite unchanged in size.

BUT, most of the change in distance from the observer to the Flat Earth Sun occurs in the time from when the sun is overhead till it gets this point anyway.
So many "proofs" of the Flat Earth explanation of sunset only show the last little bit, but when looking at the (non-existent) change in size that is almost irrelevant.

[Tom Bishop]

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

So now you are trying to give excuses as to why your only piece of evidence doesn't support your theory? If it doesn't support your theory, it can't be used as evidence. Find different evidence that you don't have to provide excuses for.

It supports the theory. Those headlights are pretty consistent.

It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

No one denies that the size of the lights don't stay proportional to the size of the car. It is called glare. It is a well understood, noncontroversial photographic phenomena. However, in order to be evidence for your theory, it needs to appear more than just "slightly bigger than expected". It needs to:

1. Appear the same size regardless of distance.

The headlights in the distance are pretty consistent.

2. Details of the object being "magnified" must be preserved.

I see details. Those headlights in the last image aren't perfect circles. They have detail to them.

None of your "evidence" shows this. Therefore, you have no evidence to support your theory. You don't even have a logical reason as to WHY it would happen.

The Wiki page explains the reason why.

[TotesNotReptilian]

I realize you are just desperately grasping at straws right now, but I will answer seriously anyway.

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

So now you are trying to give excuses as to why your only piece of evidence doesn't support your theory? If it doesn't support your theory, it can't be used as evidence. Find different evidence that you don't have to provide excuses for.

It supports the theory. Those headlights are pretty consistent.

"Pretty consistent"? Consistently what? They consistently get smaller with distance. This is the opposite of what your theory predicts.

It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

No one denies that the size of the lights don't stay proportional to the size of the car. It is called glare. It is a well understood, noncontroversial photographic phenomena. However, in order to be evidence for your theory, it needs to appear more than just "slightly bigger than expected". It needs to:

1. Appear the same size regardless of distance.

The headlights in the distance are pretty consistent.

You are just trying to be evasive with your wording. Do you really believe that the headlights in the distance don't appear smaller? If so, state it clearly. If not, then just admit that this photo doesn't support your theory.

2. Details of the object being "magnified" must be preserved.

I see details. Those headlights in the last image aren't perfect circles. They have detail to them.

Those aren't the details we are talking about and you know it. With the sun and moon, we can see distinct interior details.

None of your "evidence" shows this. Therefore, you have no evidence to support your theory. You don't even have a logical reason as to WHY it would happen.

The Wiki page explains the reason why.

The explanation given on the wiki is just silly, but I will concede this point for now, only because I would rather focus on the complete lack of evidence.

My main point stands. All evidence presented so far fails to support your theory.

[rabinoz]

I see details. Those headlights in the last image aren't perfect circles. They have detail to them.

Tom can you honestly say that the photo of the moon near the horizon looks as though it has been "magnified by glare"?

20160524 19:36 - Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.516° at - 1600mm

20160519 22:08 - Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.511° at - 1600mm

Note that in both photos the moon's detail is quite apparent. Yes, the left photo might be a bit redder (but that could be just exposure), but the detail in not much different.The left one was only 6.3° above the horizon and the other at 71.5°.

[Venus]

The moon stays essentially the same size from the moon rising to setting, and I cannot see how that can be attributed to "glare"!

The moon is very bright, but somewhat dimmed after the light passes through the atmosphere. It's the second brightest object in the sky apart from the sun.

Tom ... if the sun is a "spotlight" and only shines downwards... how does the moon get lit up by this spotlight??? Seeing the moon is at the same height above the earth as the sun... ??