Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.
Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.
And well documented at that. If you actually measure the rays, they are parallel.
In the same universe where parallel railroad tracks appear to converge as they recede into the distance.Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.
And well documented at that. If you actually measure the rays, they are parallel.
How would you suggest we measure the rays? In what universe does that look parallel?
Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.
And well documented at that. If you actually measure the rays, they are parallel.
How would you suggest we measure the rays? In what universe does that look parallel?
By that logic: The end of all train tracks and roads must also be "very very" close.
Your post is possibly the laziest attempt at a flat earth "proof" I have ever seen. Worst thing about it is it's not even original. Just another lame re-post of the same tired old junk observation/logic.
Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.
And well documented at that. If you actually measure the rays, they are parallel.
And the Anti-crepuscular rays?
And the Anti-crepuscular rays?
The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.
But here's the primary and major difference.
Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.
Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.
Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg
In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg
—
And the Anti-crepuscular rays?
The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.
But here's the primary and major difference.
Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.
Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.
Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg
In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg
—
And the Anti-crepuscular rays?
The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.
But here's the primary and major difference.
Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.
Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.
Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg
In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg
—
Sorry you have misunderstood what anti-crepuscular both look like and how they are the from the same source, ie the sun shining through clouds (nothing to do with trees?), you have to turn 180deg' from the sun to see them and they converge on the opposite horizon showing that it is a perspective thing.
See http://earthsky.org/earth/how-to-see-anticrepuscular-rays
But even normal Crepuscular rays show a different perspective when viewed from the side, see https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=2&t=cloud70&i=33
Just in case you wanted to see the clouds I meant, it's the one at the bottom right labelled Toronto as this link only takes you part of the way(?)
And the Anti-crepuscular rays?
The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.
But here's the primary and major difference.
Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.
Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.
Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg
In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg
—
Sorry you have misunderstood what anti-crepuscular both look like and how they are the from the same source, ie the sun shining through clouds (nothing to do with trees?), you have to turn 180deg' from the sun to see them and they converge on the opposite horizon showing that it is a perspective thing.
See http://earthsky.org/earth/how-to-see-anticrepuscular-rays
But even normal Crepuscular rays show a different perspective when viewed from the side, see https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=2&t=cloud70&i=33
Just in case you wanted to see the clouds I meant, it's the one at the bottom right labelled Toronto as this link only takes you part of the way(?) Bloody hell! they have moved it to the next page, look for it "Toronto bathed in crepuscular rays"
Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.
—
Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.
—
Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.
—
So now we know the rays are parallel, how far away does that make the sun?
Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.
—
So now we know the rays are parallel, how far away does that make the sun?
The rays are not parallel. From a side view viewing the rays from straight on, even from a high mountain, the angles are seen - hence the angles are true. You will apparently twist anything (including my words) to fit your theories.
However what should be noted is that the distance between any two beams is very short. Therefor the short length will be calculated together with the angle of the beams to obtain the distance of the sun.We await your calculations showing the sun to be a couple hundred feet away.
Beams from a distance which hit two points on the ground that are far apart will take the length into consideration, as well as the two angles, when calculating the distance of the sun.
However what should be noted is that the distance between any two beams is very short. Therefor the short length will be calculated together with the angle of the beams to obtain the distance of the sun.We await your calculations showing the sun to be a couple hundred feet away.
Beams from a distance which hit two points on the ground that are far apart will take the length into consideration, as well as the two angles, when calculating the distance of the sun.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/Dsc01598-2_zpsvhphretn.jpg)
Have you ever seen rays of light shining down through the clouds? Something like this?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Crepuscular_ray_sunset_from_telstra_tower_edit.jpg)
If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory. The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states.
To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.
By that logic: The end of all train tracks and roads must also be "very very" close.No!! Are you blind????
By that logic: The end of all train tracks and roads must also be "very very" close.No!! Are you blind????
Train tracks and roads are only a few feet wide.
The triangulated span of the sun's rays is many times wider than the width of a road.
Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.
—
It's so satisfying to witness the biggest of the FE-trolls on this site become mute as soon as someone actually cares enough about shutting them up, to provide very, very simple, reproduceable facts.
I just love it. It makes the world a better place.
Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!
(https://viaggiailmondo.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sun-behind-tree-in-forest.jpg)
Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!How do you explain that on a round floating ball fantasy earth??
Its perspective. The sun is not right behind those trees.Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!How do you explain that on a round floating ball fantasy earth??
Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!
(https://viaggiailmondo.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sun-behind-tree-in-forest.jpg)
How do you know that's sunlight?
Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!How do you explain that on a round floating ball fantasy earth??
Are you seriously suggesting that the Sun is actually right behind those trees? WTF?Are you seriously suggesting that the train-tracks actually reach the Sun?? WTF??
Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.
Have you ever seen rays of light shining down through the clouds? Something like this?
If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory. The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states.
To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Crepuscular_ray_sunset_from_telstra_tower_edit.jpg)
| Sure, "To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window." BUT, sometimes it is wise to engage the brain before coming out with ridiculous pronouncements. Let's look at another example. This one is taken quite for north of the Equator (and the Tropic of Cancer) in Scotland and is a frame at 5:42 in the video Crepuscular rays i.e. Optical Illusion of the Sun's Diverging / Spreading Rays (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4dzXOBY3C0) Now the reason I said "ridiculous pronouncements", was NOT to ridicules Pongo belief in the Flat Earth, but from the conclusions drawb from that photo. In the example I have shown on the right I have extended the rays and they do indeed meet at a point that appears close to the earth. But just consider how close! The base of Cumulo-Nimbus clouds is usually at about 1,000 m, so I have stretched thins a bit and estimated that the apparent position of the sun might be about 2,000 m high and directly that Scottish loch. But, "Flat Earth Theory" tells us that the sun is at an altitude of roughly 5,000 km, 2,500 times higher than our estimate! Summit' wrong 'ere mate! Not only that we have the sun directly over a Scotland - probably 3,600 km north of northmost excursion of the sun. So, Flat Earth or Globe, to suggest that the convergence point of these rays shows us a sun at 5,000 km altitude is ridiculous. And saying "you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory" is completely false. | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Crepuscilar%20Rays%20Explanation_zps6vptuxuy.png) Crepuscular Rays Explanation |
This time I have taken the same picture "removed" the clouds, but left the sun, the rays and the indicators of where the sun was shining through the clouds. Suddenly, there seems to be no problem! The sun looks to be in quite a normal position in the sky any any light reaching those points on the loch would pass through the location we have marked. To me, and I hope to you, there seems to be no question about it. The presence of the clouds distorts our ideas of perspective. Mind you now, in my opinion at least, these photos of "Crepuscular Rays" (on their own!) do not provide evidence either way on the Flat ~ Globe debate. Thanks, Pongo, this topic has always bothered me - now I am satisfied, even if no-one else is. It is simply an optical illusion. This video Crepuscular rays i.e. Optical Illusion of the Sun's Diverging / Spreading Rays (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4dzXOBY3C0) I referred to is a bit slow, but probably worth watching | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Crepuscular%20Rays%20Explanation%20-%20no%20Clouds_zpssk3rihhc.png) Crepuscular Rays Explanation - no Clouds |
Have you ever seen rays of light shining down through the clouds? Something like this?It's perspective. You may have heard that parallel appear to converge in the distance. That's what you're seeing.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Crepuscular_ray_sunset_from_telstra_tower_edit.jpg)
If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory. The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states.
To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.
If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory. The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states.
To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.
Or, perhaps, I haven't been swayed by anyone's rebuttals.
Or, perhaps, I haven't been swayed by anyone's rebuttals.
Which would indicate a rather alarming lack of flexibility in your beliefs, since you apparently also cannot actually adress any of their points.
How does that in anyway show an inability to address their points? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
How does that in anyway show an inability to address their points? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Since we are talking about an empirical fact (whether or not you can adress their points), absence of evidence is (weak) evidence of absence. You not adressing the points is more likely to happen in a world where you cannot adress their points than in a world where you can. Unless you are not actually interested in honest discussion, that is.
Have you ever seen rays of light shining down through the clouds? Something like this?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Crepuscular_ray_sunset_from_telstra_tower_edit.jpg)
If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory. The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states.
To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.
Honestly, I'm simply not interested in discussion.
I posted this last June. I haven't seen anything that disproves the post. All the pictures posted of clouds confirm my position (thanks!) and all the pictures of trees just look like they stuck a floodlight behind the tree before snapping the photograph.
So, if my apathy to argue gives your imagination the perception of perch on which to declare victory, then go ahead.
As an aside, it's nice to know that you've turned the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" axiom on it's head, though. You should probably try and get that published in a journal or something so you get credit for it.
Or, perhaps, I haven't been swayed by anyone's rebuttals.
and all the pictures of trees just look like they stuck a floodlight behind the tree before snapping the photograph.My picture was of sunlight. Are you saying you've never been outside among some trees in conditions that allow for 'rays' of sunlight to filter through? You should get out more.
Further to my interest both in this site and weather phenomena/nature etc, I came across this magnificent site (Atmospheric optics), it has in depth science married to some truly stunning photography.
Relating to this discussion specifically, the following is a good example of how the eye is tricked by perspective (make sure to scroll down)
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz946.htm anti-crepuscular laser.
And specifically to orbi’s attempt to gloss over the fact that anti-crepuscular rays negate the point he makes for crepuscular ones, the following is a full horizon montage showing both.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz189.htm full spread crepuscular
Since you apparently don't understand the arguments against your OP (and against any claims that crepuscular rays show that the sun is closer than 93 million miles), I'll break things down for you as plainly as I can.How does that in anyway show an inability to address their points? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Since we are talking about an empirical fact (whether or not you can adress their points), absence of evidence is (weak) evidence of absence. You not adressing the points is more likely to happen in a world where you cannot adress their points than in a world where you can. Unless you are not actually interested in honest discussion, that is.
Honestly, I'm simply not interested in discussion. I posted this last June. I haven't seen anything that disproves the post. All the pictures posted of clouds confirm my position (thanks!) and all the pictures of trees just look like they stuck a floodlight behind the tree before snapping the photograph.
You are forgetting ::) ::) bendy light ::) ::)!!!
Of course, a sailor could also, assuming a round Earth, determine his position by the stars, assuming he had an accurate chronometer and a table giving the positions of stars at known locations at specific times. Wait'll I tell the Navy about this! ;D
Marine chronometerfrom: Marine chronometer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_chronometer)
A marine chronometer is a timepiece that is precise and accurate enough to be used as a portable time standard; it can therefore be used to determine longitude by means of celestial navigation. When first developed in the 18th century, it was a major technical achievement, as accurate knowledge of the time over a long sea voyage is necessary for navigation, lacking electronic or communications aids. The first true chronometer was the life work of one man, John Harrison, spanning 31 years of persistent experimentation and testing that revolutionized naval (and later aerial) navigation and enabling the Age of Discovery and Colonialism to accelerate.
Haven't I heard somewhere that there was a big prize for aQuoteMarine chronometerfrom: Marine chronometer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_chronometer)
A marine chronometer is a timepiece that is precise and accurate enough to be used as a portable time standard; it can therefore be used to determine longitude by means of celestial navigation. When first developed in the 18th century, it was a major technical achievement, as accurate knowledge of the time over a long sea voyage is necessary for navigation, lacking electronic or communications aids. The first true chronometer was the life work of one man, John Harrison, spanning 31 years of persistent experimentation and testing that revolutionized naval (and later aerial) navigation and enabling the Age of Discovery and Colonialism to accelerate.
Or, perhaps, I haven't been swayed by anyone's rebuttals.
Which would indicate a rather alarming lack of flexibility in your beliefs, since you apparently also cannot actually adress any of their points.
How does that in anyway show an inability to address their points? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I had to take a full screenshot of page three just for Giants Orbiting's comment.
...
Making posts that offer nothing but ad hominem, sarcasm, and mockery.
...
Would you believe this man has been researching the flat earth literally for ONE MONTH!
—