[AATW]

Your pretty picture is simply the rays of the Sun reflecting off the Earth casting a shadow on the clouds underneath.

It's a better answer than "perspective", I'll give you that. But you can see from images like this that the sun is physically low in the sky, or appears so. That's how clouds can be lit from below, not reflection



While we're here, this is the video I mentioned earlier

[TomInAustin]

On this point the author apparently did not read Earth Not a Globe which explains why this occurs. We have a writeup in our Wiki: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

And, as usual, ENaG is wrong about this. Actually the sun (and moon) don't get any bigger or smaller as they set. It is merely an optical illusion.
Couple of sources:

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Sun-appear-bigger-during-sunrise-and-sunset-than-at-noon
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate

And, as I said, there are other ways of verifying the distance of the sun by taking observations from a few points and triangulating. Has this been done?
Looking forward to a reply to the rest of my questions.

The sun maintains its size through the day according to the description in our Wiki. The shrinking due to perspective is countered by the enlarging upon the atmoplane, causing its size to be consistent.

The Wiki isn't saying that the sun enlarges to be any bigger than it normally is.

Are we to assume another set of celestial gears run the sun and moon but don't mesh at the equator?

[Rounder]

Your pretty picture is simply the rays of the Sun reflecting off the Earth casting a shadow on the clouds underneath.

Preposterous.  Dirt, rocks, grass, trees....these are not reflective surfaces.  If they were, clouds would always be lit from underneath.

[totallackey]

Your pretty picture is simply the rays of the Sun reflecting off the Earth casting a shadow on the clouds underneath.

Preposterous.  Dirt, rocks, grass, trees....these are not reflective surfaces.  If they were, clouds would always be lit from underneath.

Obviously, you cannot claim , "...dirt, rocks, grass, trees...these are not reflective surfaces." They all have some level of reflectivity or else your pretty NASA images become impossible!!!

Plus, the area around the mountain in question (Rainier, in the State of Washington) has a great deal of freshwater, saltwater, and snow, surrounding it all times of the year.

Freshwater, saltwater, and snow, are HIGHLY REFLECTIVE SURFACES, sometimes to the point of requiring EYE PROTECTION!!!

[totallackey]

Your pretty picture is simply the rays of the Sun reflecting off the Earth casting a shadow on the clouds underneath.

It's a better answer than "perspective", I'll give you that. But you can see from images like this that the sun is physically low in the sky, or appears so. That's how clouds can be lit from below, not reflection

And the whole issue of perspective eludes your mental grasp.

For instance, we can agree that cloud types (cumulus, strato-cumulus, alto-cumulus, cirrus, etc.) all occupy the same altitude. The respective "floor," and "ceiling," of these cloud types would be approximately the same with very little difference at the same time/place of observation.

On any certain day of observation, I can watch a jet pass overhead, exceeding the ceilings of the clouds. As that jet passes further down range, the cloud (which the jet obviously passed over the top of just seconds prior) now appears higher in the sky to me than does the jet, yet the jet made no change to altitude.

Okay, sparky?

[Ratboy]

Although, now that I think of it, the angle the sun would have to be at to reflect on the ice and snow and everything to make a shadow that is almost horizontal would put the sun very low.  Since when the sun sets at Mt Ranier, it is noon at Bejing, the sun would be about 6000 miles away.  If the sun is 3000 miles up, that would put it at an angle of about 25 degrees in the sky.  The reflection should light the clouds and the shadow at about 25 degrees or more, depending where this reflection is.  I apologize for believing at first that it could explain it, but it would still require a low sun, just like when you are shooting billiards.

[AATW]

And the whole issue of perspective eludes your mental grasp.

Yes. I remember one time I couldn't work out why a frisbee I could see kept getting bigger.
Then it hit me...

On any certain day of observation, I can watch a jet pass overhead, exceeding the ceilings of the clouds. As that jet passes further down range, the cloud (which the jet obviously passed over the top of just seconds prior) now appears lower in the sky to me than does the cloud, yet the jet made no change to altitude.

Yes. I literally showed how that could work with the photo of the row of lamp posts above.
But "perspective" was Tom's answer to how SHADOWS can be cast upwards. I have explained above, with proof, how that is impossible.
In your scenario if someone on the plane was to shine a light on the clouds which is powerful enough that the cloud casts a shadow then even though FROM MY PERSPECTIVE the jet appears below the cloud it is still PHYSICALLY above the cloud and so the shadow would be angled downwards. That is how shadows work. If you don't understand that then I'd suggest it is not my mental grasp which is being eluded.

Reflection is a better answer but the ground would have to be pretty much be mirror-like to produce that amount of brightness and cast shadows like in that photo so it's implausible.

While we're here, perspective also cannot explain the photo above which only shows part of the disc of the sun. If the sun is 3,000 miles above the plane of the earth then it cannot be seen to slowly disappear below the horizon as it does every single day.

[Ratboy]

And the whole issue of perspective eludes your mental grasp.

Yes. I remember one time I couldn't work out why a frisbee I could see kept getting bigger.
Then it hit me...

On any certain day of observation, I can watch a jet pass overhead, exceeding the ceilings of the clouds. As that jet passes further down range, the cloud (which the jet obviously passed over the top of just seconds prior) now appears lower in the sky to me than does the cloud, yet the jet made no change to altitude.

Yes. I literally showed how that could work with the photo of the row of lamp posts above.
But "perspective" was Tom's answer to how SHADOWS can be cast upwards. I have explained above, with proof, how that is impossible.
In your scenario if someone on the plane was to shine a light on the clouds which is powerful enough that the cloud casts a shadow then even though FROM MY PERSPECTIVE the jet appears below the cloud it is still PHYSICALLY above the cloud and so the shadow would be angled downwards. That is how shadows work. If you don't understand that then I'd suggest it is not my mental grasp which is being eluded.

Reflection is a better answer but the ground would have to be pretty much be mirror-like to produce that amount of brightness and cast shadows like in that photo so it's implausible.

While we're here, perspective also cannot explain the photo above which only shows part of the disc of the sun. If the sun is 3,000 miles above the plane of the earth then it cannot be seen to slowly disappear below the horizon as it does every single day.

I just thought of a simple experiment.  Hold your hand horizontally near a lamp post at night.  The top your hand is light and the bottom is dark.  Move your eyes to different heights and see the light "above" and "below" your hand.  When it appears below, the bottom of your hand does not light up.  It stays dark.  If you line up your hand and lamp and eye in a straight line, you will see that you are looking up.  When you stand on a mountain (or other high place) and line up your eye, that tree below you in the distance and the setting sun (or moon) you will see that you are looking down. 

[AATW]

I just thought of a simple experiment.  Hold your hand horizontally near a lamp post at night.  The top your hand is light and the bottom is dark.  Move your eyes to different heights and see the light "above" and "below" your hand.  When it appears below, the bottom of your hand does not light up.  It stays dark.  If you line up your hand and lamp and eye in a straight line, you will see that you are looking up.  When you stand on a mountain (or other high place) and line up your eye, that tree below you in the distance and the setting sun (or moon) you will see that you are looking down.

Yes, that is basically the experiment I did above with the lamp and the Rubik's cube. I changed my perspective so the light appeared below the cube but the underside of the cube didn't light up because a shadow's angle is dictated by the PHYSICAL relationship between objects, not your perspective.

[Rounder]

Plus, the area around the mountain in question (Rainier, in the State of Washington) has a great deal of freshwater, saltwater, and snow, surrounding it all times of the year.

Cool story.  Too bad it isn't true

[totallackey]

Plus, the area around the mountain in question (Rainier, in the State of Washington) has a great deal of freshwater, saltwater, and snow, surrounding it all times of the year.

Cool story.  Too bad it isn't true

Have you ever been to Ranier?

If not, then you need more than a snapshot from Google Earth to even comment.

I suggest you refrain from posting on this topic.

Ranier receives some (if not, the MOST) of the highest yearly snowfall totals in the contiguous 48 states.

Bye bye!

[totallackey]

And the whole issue of perspective eludes your mental grasp.

Yes. I remember one time I couldn't work out why a frisbee I could see kept getting bigger.
Then it hit me...

On any certain day of observation, I can watch a jet pass overhead, exceeding the ceilings of the clouds. As that jet passes further down range, the cloud (which the jet obviously passed over the top of just seconds prior) now appears lower in the sky to me than does the cloud, yet the jet made no change to altitude.

Yes. I literally showed how that could work with the photo of the row of lamp posts above.
But "perspective" was Tom's answer to how SHADOWS can be cast upwards. I have explained above, with proof, how that is impossible.
In your scenario if someone on the plane was to shine a light on the clouds which is powerful enough that the cloud casts a shadow then even though FROM MY PERSPECTIVE the jet appears below the cloud it is still PHYSICALLY above the cloud and so the shadow would be angled downwards. That is how shadows work. If you don't understand that then I'd suggest it is not my mental grasp which is being eluded.

I doubt any man-made light would be powerful enough to cast a light on any natural surface found on Earth, but the point still remains regarding why the Sun (obviously higher than the jet, larger than the jet) can still appear "lower than the clouds<" and still account for being able to "illuminate and cast shadows," under the clouds.

Reflection is a better answer but the ground would have to be pretty much be mirror-like to produce that amount of brightness and cast shadows like in that photo so it's implausible.

Implausible? I do not think so.

If you have ever been subject to the Sun's reflected rays off of water or snow, not only can you be permanently blinded by these reflected rays (just as you would by direct exposure), you can suffer severe burns just as you would by direct exposure, with no change in severity.

While we're here, perspective also cannot explain the photo above which only shows part of the disc of the sun. If the sun is 3,000 miles above the plane of the earth then it cannot be seen to slowly disappear below the horizon as it does every single day.

That is a common misconception and, unfortunately, the answer lies in the way you choose to word things.

You claim below, I choose the word beyond.

I am not under some delusion I can see all things above my head at all times. Sometimes they still remain above the flat plane but are beyond my visual acuity for any number of reasons.

[ShowmetheProof]

You claim below, I choose the word beyond.

You're kidding me right?  If the sun circles overhead the earth then wouldn't it just disappear as it gets smaller and smaller?   

[Ratboy]

You claim below, I choose the word beyond.

You're kidding me right?  If the sun circles overhead the earth then wouldn't it just disappear as it gets smaller and smaller?

The chapter in Rowbotham called Why the Sun is bigger when setting than at noontime (or whatever exactly it is called) explains that the magnifying effect of the air makes the far away sun get bigger.  It is a magical air that makes the sun (and moon) look the same size regardless of where you are on earth and how far away it is.  So, sadly, it is not a joke.  If you do not look at things and just think about it, you might be able to convince yourself that there is some way the earth can be flat, at least in your hemisphere.  Oops, I just realized that hemisphere admits the earth is a sphere.  In your hemiplate, would be better.

[AATW]

Implausible? I do not think so.

If you have ever been subject to the Sun's reflected rays off of water or snow, not only can you be permanently blinded by these reflected rays (just as you would by direct exposure), you can suffer severe burns just as you would by direct exposure, with no change in severity.

Well, as I said your theory is at least possible and it's a better answer than Tom shouting "PERSPECTIVE". I got my threads mixed up earlier, my demonstration of why perspective isn't possible is in this thread
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.160

BUT while your theory is at least possible
1) That is quite specific conditions, there would have to be a very reflective surface and this surely can't explain every single photo of underlit clouds
2) If the sun is in the sky then we should expect light from it to be shining down too, not just reflecting upwards, that isn't what the photo shows.

Noctilucent clouds can easily be explained on a round earth - the sun has gone down from ground level but the clouds are high enough that there is still an unobstructed line from the sun to them, so they are illuminated. Can this be explained with the flat earth model?:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/owq48cciThU/maxresdefault.jpg

That is a common misconception and, unfortunately, the answer lies in the way you choose to word things.

You claim below, I choose the word beyond.

I am not under some delusion I can see all things above my head at all times. Sometimes they still remain above the flat plane but are beyond my visual acuity for any number of reasons.

OK. But what I don't understand is why the sun which is perfectly large and bright at sunset can sink slowly below or behind the horizon. Surely it would just shrink or fade out. I think I'm going to need some diagrams to understand how you think sunset works on a flat earth. Tom's response is perspective, I have proved that cannot be the explanation, I'm still not clear how this could actually work.

[JohnAdams1145]

totallackey's theory is totally implausible. We should not give any semblance of credit to it, because while the Earth's surface reflects light (that's how we see it!), it does not reflect anywhere close to all of it (unless it's really snowy outside). In particular, the photo provided by AllAroundTheWorld has the clouds and Sun over water. The albedo of open ocean is 0.06 (and presumably that of lakes and such is close to that), so the direct sunlight to your eyes would have to be at least 16 times stronger than that reflected by the ocean. This is not including the fact that the ocean diffuses the reflected light over a much wider area than the clouds (this is also why you can see the ocean!), severely diminishing the intensity of the sunlight. The Sun would have to be much brighter for you to see the clouds lit by reflected light from the ocean.

[supaluminus]

You claim below, I choose the word beyond.

You're kidding me right?  If the sun circles overhead the earth then wouldn't it just disappear as it gets smaller and smaller?

The chapter in Rowbotham called Why the Sun is bigger when setting than at noontime (or whatever exactly it is called) explains that the magnifying effect of the air makes the far away sun get bigger.  It is a magical air that makes the sun (and moon) look the same size regardless of where you are on earth and how far away it is.  So, sadly, it is not a joke.  If you do not look at things and just think about it, you might be able to convince yourself that there is some way the earth can be flat, at least in your hemisphere.  Oops, I just realized that hemisphere admits the earth is a sphere.  In your hemiplate, would be better.

The phenomenon you're referring to as "a magical air" is just the way light behaves when moving through a medium, by bending. It's called refraction, and you can observe it by sticking a straw into a glass of water.

You don't notice it everywhere you look in the sky because you're not looking through the same VOLUME of air.

If you actually care to understand why and how this works, I can explain.

[totallackey]

Implausible? I do not think so.

If you have ever been subject to the Sun's reflected rays off of water or snow, not only can you be permanently blinded by these reflected rays (just as you would by direct exposure), you can suffer severe burns just as you would by direct exposure, with no change in severity.

Well, as I said your theory is at least possible and it's a better answer than Tom shouting "PERSPECTIVE". I got my threads mixed up earlier, my demonstration of why perspective isn't possible is in this thread
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.160

BUT while your theory is at least possible
1) That is quite specific conditions, there would have to be a very reflective surface and this surely can't explain every single photo of underlit clouds

If there was not specific conditions, then someone would take a snapshot of Ranier everyday! Ranier does not exhibit such a shadow everyday, does it?

2) If the sun is in the sky then we should expect light from it to be shining down too, not just reflecting upwards, that isn't what the photo shows.

Who says the Sun is not shining down in the photo?

Noctilucent clouds can easily be explained on a round earth - the sun has gone down from ground level but the clouds are high enough that there is still an unobstructed line from the sun to them, so they are illuminated. Can this be explained with the flat earth model?:https://i.ytimg.com/vi/owq48cciThU/maxresdefault.jpg

Again, I would submit reflected rays from any number of light sources.

There are even a whole bunch of artificial light sources capable of producing noctilucent clouds, and I have no further information than the picture in order to deduce a possible cause.

OK. But what I don't understand is why the sun which is perfectly large and bright at sunset can sink slowly below or behind the horizon. Surely it would just shrink or fade out. I think I'm going to need some diagrams to understand how you think sunset works on a flat earth. Tom's response is perspective, I have proved that cannot be the explanation, I'm still not clear how this could actually work.

The Sun disappears beyond the horizon, not below the horizon.

[Ratboy]

The sun sets.  It goes down.  In the north it is very slow but near the equator it drops fast. It is not moving away, it is going down.  It is a sunset.  I was in Fiji and I said "want to wait and watch the sunset?" "No, lets just go" However before we could walk back to the shack, the sun had gone down and it was dark.  In the morning it rises.  It is not coming from some distance.  It is rising.  Go and watch a sun rise and a sun set.  In the Arctic on Jan 22 at noon, I had to climb the hill to see the sun pop up and then pop down.  It was not coming closer and then farther.  Pop up and pop down.  Half the earth is lit at all times.  Phone some person far away from you.  Ask them if the sun is there.

[Ratboy]

And when the stars go down below the horizon, just before they disappear, they keep the same distances between them.  As the stars come closer and move away, the distances between them should change.  We should not all be able to recognize the same constellations all the time if they are circling around a flat earth.  Perspective makes telephone poles look closer together as they get farther away.  Train tracks converge to a point.  Stars for some reason just look the same all the time.