[nyrks]

Can anyone explain why the clouds in my image this morning seem to be lit from the bottom. And in fact you can even see where the sunlight is most concentrated.

Please note this image was taken 20 minutes before sunrise. Also not this was only in the East. The clouds to the West were not lit at all.

This observation seems to prove a spherical earth as there is no way for the sun to be below the clouds on a flat plane.

[nyrks]

Seems observational data really hurts your points seeing the lack of replies here.

[juner]

Seems observational data really hurts your points seeing the lack of replies here.

Please don't bump your own thread after a couple of hours. If people want to reply, they will. You are acting like you made an original point. I assure you this topic has been discussed repeatedly, so it is quite possible people aren't interested in jumping back into it based on a post by a new user who clearly hasn't spent any time doing their own research here.

[QED]

Sigh, I’ll do it Junker. It’s probably my turn anyway.

Refraction of light off atmosphere

An optical effect of coillodal (hazy) atmosphere that defocuses light of select wavelengths from your eye (google mirage)

Your camera sucks

Infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and scattered off the clouds above

Just off the top of my head...

[nyrks]

Sigh, I’ll do it Junker. It’s probably my turn anyway.

Refraction of light off atmosphere

An optical effect of coillodal (hazy) atmosphere that defocuses light of select wavelengths from your eye (google mirage)

Your camera sucks

Infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and scattered off the clouds above

Just off the top of my head...

Refraction of light off atmosphere -> Probably your best argument, the rest is trash. I would be interested in your calculation for the angle of refraction of the air when light is coming from vacuum, and how that correlates to clouds being illuminated from the bottom. And I assume you believe in the vacuum of space as well since refraction requires a change in medium that the light travels through.

An optical effect of coillodal (hazy) atmosphere that defocuses light of select wavelengths from your eye (google mirage) -> A mirage is like you said, hazy, and this sir, was clear and crisp. Had no signs of optical intrusion by different temperatures of air masses.

Your camera sucks -> Lazy argument. What about my camera would cause this. Also see below.

Infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and scattered off the clouds above -> My eyes cannot see infrared and I can assure you, this camera captured nearly exactly what I saw with my eyes.



Ill go ahead and invoke Occam's razor and say that simply: the clouds are literally being illuminated by the sun, from the bottom.

[juner]

Here is a detailed explanation.

Lmao ahahaha

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.

[Tom Bishop]

When you are higher in altitude it pushes your vanishing point back into the distance and it takes longer for bodies to set. Those clouds are seeing the red sunset and it has already set for the observer.

[jimster]

From wikipedia:

A vanishing point is a point on the image plane of a perspective drawing where the two-dimensional perspective projections (or drawings) of mutually parallel lines in three-dimensional space appear to converge.

Seeing does not respond to gravity as mass does. Altitude has no bearing on vision, only diffraction and absorption.

You do not understand vanishing point. The reason we can't see things in the distance is they fill smaller and smaller arcs as they are farther. The rod/cone (think of it as a "pixel") has a certain arc of the eyeball it registers. When something is so far away it does not fill enough arc to register on enough pixels. Think of looking at a toothpicl a quarter mile away. You can see a house but not a toothpick. Put that house on the moon, and you can see the moon but not the house.

Interestingly, Your last sentence may be right, if you mean that although the sun is below the horizon for the guy taking the picture it is still above the horizon for the clouds, because they are west and higher altitude.

[Jeppspace]

Clouds observed from above are exceptionally bright due to their reflectivity of sunlight. Clouds observed from beneath seldom present such bright reflectivity.

Granted there are atmospheric conditions to take into calculation when saying this.

However, since clouds should retain reflectivity regardless of the time of day, if the Earth were a ball, 25,000 miles in circumference, then one would observe a greater amount of light being reflected down onto the ground than we actually observe during sunset and therefore we would also experience alternating terminator periods dependent on the quantity of reflective cloud cover.

Furthermore, we would observe isolated patches of the Earth remaining lit by reflectivity, where cloud is not a constant canopy, even after the Sun has set.

[Tom Bishop]

From wikipedia:

A vanishing point is a point on the image plane of a perspective drawing where the two-dimensional perspective projections (or drawings) of mutually parallel lines in three-dimensional space appear to converge.

Seeing does not respond to gravity as mass does. Altitude has no bearing on vision, only diffraction and absorption.

You do not understand vanishing point. The reason we can't see things in the distance is they fill smaller and smaller arcs as they are farther. The rod/cone (think of it as a "pixel") has a certain arc of the eyeball it registers. When something is so far away it does not fill enough arc to register on enough pixels. Think of looking at a toothpicl a quarter mile away. You can see a house but not a toothpick. Put that house on the moon, and you can see the moon but not the house.

Interestingly, Your last sentence may be right, if you mean that although the sun is below the horizon for the guy taking the picture it is still above the horizon for the clouds, because they are west and higher altitude.

Would the distance to the point of convergence be different for an ant than it would be for a man?

[nyrks]

From wikipedia:

A vanishing point is a point on the image plane of a perspective drawing where the two-dimensional perspective projections (or drawings) of mutually parallel lines in three-dimensional space appear to converge.

Seeing does not respond to gravity as mass does. Altitude has no bearing on vision, only diffraction and absorption.

You do not understand vanishing point. The reason we can't see things in the distance is they fill smaller and smaller arcs as they are farther. The rod/cone (think of it as a "pixel") has a certain arc of the eyeball it registers. When something is so far away it does not fill enough arc to register on enough pixels. Think of looking at a toothpicl a quarter mile away. You can see a house but not a toothpick. Put that house on the moon, and you can see the moon but not the house.

Interestingly, Your last sentence may be right, if you mean that although the sun is below the horizon for the guy taking the picture it is still above the horizon for the clouds, because they are west and higher altitude.

Would the distance to the point of convergence be different for an ant than it would be for a man?

If you make these assumptions:

The Ant has the same eyes as the human.
The object is unobstructed, including by earths curve.

Then the answer is, No. The height of the observer does not affect its vanishing point.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Here is where I think you are going with this. Imagine a flat surface with infinite length. Place an object at X distance. When the angular size of the object reaches the limit of the eye. That object can appear to be behind a curve. The angular size of the ground and sky remain the same as the angular size of the object getting further to infinity gets smaller.

This however can easily be debunked by using optics that can enlarge a piece of an image your eye captures, and thus make the angular size of the object larger and visible again. In actual observations however, objects appear to vanish behind the earth, bottom up, at a fixed distance that can be calculated and predicted. After this point, no amount of advanced optics can bring the object back into view. The only way to see this object again is to increase elevation, which oddly enough, brings the object back into view at almost exactly the same angular size as it was before.

[jimster]

Vanishing point is a concept used in art to figure out how to render a 3d image in 2d with the appearance of 3d.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VanishingPoint.html

Theoretical vanishing point is at infinity, most use the edge of the paper. Your buildings will look slightly lopsided, better if you tape a second sheet of paper on and use a focal point farther away. Best is infinity.

An ant would see as far as an ant eye lens would view or until blocked by a closer object. A person would get the same view if he put his eye on the floor at the same spot. An ant eye at the same height as a person's eye would see the same view. Ditto them looking at a rendering that used perspective.

Imagine train tracks straight down a valley with a mountain at the and of it. The tracks get closer and closer in the distance, and disappear. That is not vanishing point, that is when they are so distant their image is narrower than the arc of a rod/cone in your eye. Just as a digital video camera or your screen can't depict something smaller than a pixel. The mountain is visible not because it is higher, but because it is bigger. We are used to thinking higher = see farther because the closer to the ground, the more obstacles.

Does it delight you that I answered this way? Do you honestly think altitude has something to do with how far you can see other than raising you higher above the horizon, as in RE explanation? Are you trolling me? Do you think vanishing point and perspective explain things on RE? Do you understand the RE meaning of these words, because many FErs do not understand the RE meaning. It is possible to disagree of disprove an RE explanation only if you understand it. Many FErs give wrong explanations of these things, and I suspect they do it on purpose. Odd way to enjoy life. I would like to explain this stuff to someone who doesn't know it. Do you understand sextant and equatorial mount on RE? I find them more amazing than the atmolayer.

I have never found a FEr who could explain how a sextant or equatorial mount work even if he didn't believe it. Many FErs present themselves as educated and intellectually skilled, but I don't think any of them are smart enough to understand sextant /north star/ latitude or equatorial mount. They lack the ability to understand these things, just not able.

[Tom Bishop]

So when train tracks appear to intersect to perspective, they have done so an "infinite" distance away? 

[nyrks]

So when train tracks appear to intersect to perspective, they have done so an "infinite" distance away? 

I will need more detail to answer. Are you talking about ONLY the unaided eye? Or will you have telescopes/P-900/some theoretical zooming device?

[stack]

The whole problem with the railroad tracks/vanishing point/perspective gambit is that it's irrelevant. The railroad tracks are not 3000 miles high. A setting or rising sun is approx 6-7k miles away from the observer somewhere over the planet. It is 3000 miles high (according to FE). In no way, at that height and at that distance will it cast light up underneath 4 mile high clouds. Nor will it cast the shadow of a lower mountain up on to the top of a higher mountain. No amount of perspective can account for this. The light source must physically raise or lower.

[Tom Bishop]

Both Earth Not a Globe and the Flat Earth Society Wiki says that the sun is a projection on the atmolayer. It can get to the horizon as easily as a cloud can.

[nyrks]

Both Earth Not a Globe and the Flat Earth Society Wiki says that the sun is a projection on the atmolayer. It can get to the horizon as easily as a cloud can.

Can you link me to this Wiki page? I tried to search but couldn't find any reference to the sun setting as a projection on the 'atmolayer'.

[stack]

Both Earth Not a Globe and the Flat Earth Society Wiki says that the sun is a projection on the atmolayer. It can get to the horizon as easily as a cloud can.

Just because ENAG and a wiki say so doesn't make it so. And to date, no one knows what "the sun is a projection on the atmolayer" even means. Diagram?

In the mean time, a 3000 mile high sun can't magically, at will, project up and under a 4 mile high cloud 'roof'. Let alone the geometric impossibility, that doesn't even remotely meet with Zetetic observations of the world we live in.

[QED]

Sigh, I’ll do it Junker. It’s probably my turn anyway.

Refraction of light off atmosphere

An optical effect of coillodal (hazy) atmosphere that defocuses light of select wavelengths from your eye (google mirage)

Your camera sucks

Infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and scattered off the clouds above

Just off the top of my head...

Refraction of light off atmosphere -> Probably your best argument, the rest is trash. I would be interested in your calculation for the angle of refraction of the air when light is coming from vacuum, and how that correlates to clouds being illuminated from the bottom. And I assume you believe in the vacuum of space as well since refraction requires a change in medium that the light travels through.

An optical effect of coillodal (hazy) atmosphere that defocuses light of select wavelengths from your eye (google mirage) -> A mirage is like you said, hazy, and this sir, was clear and crisp. Had no signs of optical intrusion by different temperatures of air masses.

Your camera sucks -> Lazy argument. What about my camera would cause this. Also see below.

Infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and scattered off the clouds above -> My eyes cannot see infrared and I can assure you, this camera captured nearly exactly what I saw with my eyes.



Ill go ahead and invoke Occam's razor and say that simply: the clouds are literally being illuminated by the sun, from the bottom.

I do not think you understand Occam’s razor. It has nothing to do with simplicity.

The indices of refraction will vary depending on the dust and water content in the atmosphere, so a calculation is difficult because the index of refraction would be a function of distance and composition. You would then need to integrate to obtain the final deflection angle. One would do this in an upper division optics class. Do you know about integration?

Hmm, mirages do not need to be hazy. Also, I did not say it was identical to a mirage you would see in a desert. The optical effect, however, is similar.

I’ll take your word for it that your camera is fine.

You don’t see the infrared emitted by the Earth, obviously. What you see is when it is absorbed and re-emitted at shorter wavelengths by the clouds. Much like the situation during a sun set, except in that case the infrared is from the Sun directly, and gets to the clouds because the atmosphere scatters out all the higher frequency light.

The question you actually want to ask to challenge me on this point is: how come you don’t see red clouds at night! The Earth is still emitting infrared radiation, after all!

Plus, if the Sun is a black body emitter as REers claim, then how come the Sky isn’t purple! Air should scatter ~1/L^4, where L is the wavelength of the light. So we should see a purple sky, since it has a shorter wavelength than blue, and should scatter then more easily.

[stack]

Sigh, I’ll do it Junker. It’s probably my turn anyway.

Refraction of light off atmosphere

An optical effect of coillodal (hazy) atmosphere that defocuses light of select wavelengths from your eye (google mirage)

Your camera sucks

Infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and scattered off the clouds above

Just off the top of my head...

Refraction of light off atmosphere -> Probably your best argument, the rest is trash. I would be interested in your calculation for the angle of refraction of the air when light is coming from vacuum, and how that correlates to clouds being illuminated from the bottom. And I assume you believe in the vacuum of space as well since refraction requires a change in medium that the light travels through.

An optical effect of coillodal (hazy) atmosphere that defocuses light of select wavelengths from your eye (google mirage) -> A mirage is like you said, hazy, and this sir, was clear and crisp. Had no signs of optical intrusion by different temperatures of air masses.

Your camera sucks -> Lazy argument. What about my camera would cause this. Also see below.

Infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and scattered off the clouds above -> My eyes cannot see infrared and I can assure you, this camera captured nearly exactly what I saw with my eyes.



Ill go ahead and invoke Occam's razor and say that simply: the clouds are literally being illuminated by the sun, from the bottom.

I do not think you understand Occam’s razor. It has nothing to do with simplicity.

The indices of refraction will vary depending on the dust and water content in the atmosphere, so a calculation is difficult because the index of refraction would be a function of distance and composition. You would then need to integrate to obtain the final deflection angle. One would do this in an upper division optics class. Do you know about integration?

Hmm, mirages do not need to be hazy. Also, I did not say it was identical to a mirage you would see in a desert. The optical effect, however, is similar.

I’ll take your word for it that your camera is fine.

You don’t see the infrared emitted by the Earth, obviously. What you see is when it is absorbed and re-emitted at shorter wavelengths by the clouds. Much like the situation during a sun set, except in that case the infrared is from the Sun directly, and gets to the clouds because the atmosphere scatters out all the higher frequency light.

The question you actually want to ask to challenge me on this point is: how come you don’t see red clouds at night! The Earth is still emitting infrared radiation, after all!

Plus, if the Sun is a black body emitter as REers claim, then how come the Sky isn’t purple! Air should scatter ~1/L^4, where L is the wavelength of the light. So we should see a purple sky, since it has a shorter wavelength than blue, and should scatter then more easily.

Actually the question you should be asking yourself, rather than attempting to provide a master class on black body emitters and absorbed and re-emitted shorter wavelengths, is why a 3000 mile high FE sun can bend light up under a 4 mile high cloud. Save your pedantic pontifications for a thread that is relevant to what you want to espouse. Stick to the OP.