-
This graphic shows the mechanism of the refraction:
(https://i.imgsafe.org/9c8b550.jpg)
(http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.19/images/main/refraction.jpg)
You see the sun when it's setting or rising on different place like this.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/4db654f.jpg)
Edit: Second picture. Some of our friends missunderstand what i mean.
-
This graphic shows the mechanism of the refraction:
(https://i.imgsafe.org/9c8b550.jpg)
You see the sun when it's setting or rising on different place like this.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/4db654f.jpg)
Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.
Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?
-
Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.
Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?
Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.
-
Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.
* lower refractive index (note that the light in Intikam's diagram bends in the opposite direction of the light in the photo.)
Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.
That is beside the point. The transition from high refractive index to low refractive index would need to be very close to the surface of the earth in order for the sun to appear close to the horizon.
Clouds are not the answer, because clouds change with the weather, but sunsets happen regardless of the weather.
In general, the change in air pressure with altitude causes light to refract slightly in the OPPOSITE direction, causing the sun to appear slightly higher than it actually is.
-
This graphic shows the mechanism of the refraction:
(https://i.imgsafe.org/9c8b550.jpg)
You see the sun when it's setting or rising on different place like this.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/4db654f.jpg)
Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.
Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?
Well technically yes we live under water. Even the Bible say so. But it is not the form of water you would expect. There are 3 properties of water. Solid, liquid and Gas. The sky is made up of water in the form of a gas. Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. As a result depending of the density of the Air, the sun may looks like it is behind glass or water.
(http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2014/19/49743bd9780a799ddb4c681e3d0d9984d0bba4dd.jpg)
Have you ever seen this water on the road?
(http://www.nebraskaweatherphotos.org/Dsc_3561d70sm2.jpg)
That is not water that is Heat on the road. Look at the cars relflection. Look at the sun reflection.
-
There are 3 properties of water. Solid, liquid and Gas.
* phases of water
The sky is made up of water in the form of a gas.
It contains water. It isn't made up entirely of water.
Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. As a result depending of the density of the Air, the sun may looks like it is behind glass or water.
I don't understand your logic here. What the atmosphere is made up of is irrelevant. Changes in composition/density/temperature/etc causes refraction.
You give good examples of refraction, but they are heavily dependent on the weather, and the amount of refraction is still way too small to account for the sun meeting the horizon (the original point of this thread). Sunsets happen regardless of the weather.
-
Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.
Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?
Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.
We do. We have plenty of reliable space agencies. I've told you multiple times, with so many people checking the facts, there's no way they couldn't be reliable. But if you admit that, you're admitting that your pent-up biases and precious flat earth fantasy are wrong. And of course, you're much too prideful and/or deluded to do such a thing.
-
Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.
Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?
Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.
Aren't we lucky then that we had radiosondesThe first true radiosonde that sent precise encoded telemetry from weather sensors was invented in France by Robert Bureau. Bureau coined the name "radiosonde" and flew the first instrument on January 7, 1929.
From Wikipedia Radiosonde History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosonde#History)
You might get a bit of education in this area by reading up a bit. Start with elemantary stuff like: Windows to the Universe, Weather Balloons (http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/weather_balloon.html)
These relayed information back about the upper atmosphere, and I do believe that they found that the atmospheric pressure is very low up there. A fact that has been verified by sounding rockets, high flying aircraft and manned balloons.
Since the refractive index of air at Standard Temperature and Pressure is only 1.000277 (and rapidly falls with altitude), you can forget about any magical refraction appering to lower the sun. Besides it is in the wrong direction, it makes the sun appear very slightly higher (up to about 30' of arc).
Your whole attitude seems to be "we don't know these things, so we assume they explains the holes in our theory". Well they do not!
-
Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.
Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?
Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.
Aren't we lucky then that we had radiosondesThe first true radiosonde that sent precise encoded telemetry from weather sensors was invented in France by Robert Bureau. Bureau coined the name "radiosonde" and flew the first instrument on January 7, 1929.
From Wikipedia Radiosonde History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosonde#History)
You might get a bit of education in this area by reading up a bit. Start with elemantary stuff like: Windows to the Universe, Weather Balloons (http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/weather_balloon.html)
These relayed information back about the upper atmosphere, and I do believe that they found that the atmospheric pressure is very low up there. A fact that has been verified by sounding rockets, high flying aircraft and manned balloons.
Since the refractive index of air at Standard Temperature and Pressure is only 1.000277 (and rapidly falls with altitude), you can forget about any magical refraction appering to lower the sun. Besides it is in the wrong direction, it makes the sun appear very slightly higher (up to about 30' of arc).
Your whole attitude seems to be "we don't know these things, so we assume they explains the holes in our theory". Well they do not!
High atmosphere != space.
Should we also assume that earth gets infinitely hotter the deeper we go because we've found that mines get hotter with depth?
-
Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.
Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?
Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.
Aren't we lucky then that we had radiosondesThe first true radiosonde that sent precise encoded telemetry from weather sensors was invented in France by Robert Bureau. Bureau coined the name "radiosonde" and flew the first instrument on January 7, 1929.
From Wikipedia Radiosonde History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosonde#History)
You might get a bit of education in this area by reading up a bit. Start with elemantary stuff like: Windows to the Universe, Weather Balloons (http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/weather_balloon.html)
These relayed information back about the upper atmosphere, and I do believe that they found that the atmospheric pressure is very low up there. A fact that has been verified by sounding rockets, high flying aircraft and manned balloons.
Since the refractive index of air at Standard Temperature and Pressure is only 1.000277 (and rapidly falls with altitude), you can forget about any magical refraction appering to lower the sun. Besides it is in the wrong direction, it makes the sun appear very slightly higher (up to about 30' of arc).
Your whole attitude seems to be "we don't know these things, so we assume they explains the holes in our theory". Well they do not!
High atmosphere != space.
Should we also assume that earth gets infinitely hotter the deeper we go because we've found that mines get hotter with depth?
Of course not, because the earth isn't infinitely deep. Unless, of course, the earth is flat and doesn't have a known thickness, in which case that's a question you should be asking yourself.
-
Hey guys... everyone is missing the point. It doesn't matter what the refractive index of space or the upper atmosphere is. For the sun to appear next to the horizon, the refraction would have to take place very near the surface of the earth. In fact, it would have to take place practically at ground level.
Don't let Tom Bishop lead you off on an irrelevant rabbit trail so that he can dodge the relevant questions.
-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Your whole attitude seems to be "we don't know these things, so we assume they explains the holes in our theory". Well they do not!
High atmosphere != space.
Should we also assume that earth gets infinitely hotter the deeper we go because we've found that mines get hotter with depth?
I was proposing nothing of the sort, but it does appear to get a lot hotter, though no reasonable person would suggest "infinitely hotter".
We of course claim that there is plenty of evidence of what is up there and it was certainly gathered by a lot more agencies that the ::) DREADED NASA ::).
Everything you say is a negative.
So, please just what are YOU proposing? To get the sort of refraction you suggest would need the sun to be embedded in a thick glass dome!
And even that does nothing to help the "magnification" as given in the Wiki: Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
Surely you realise how ridiculous "magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer" sounds when you think about it! The "intense rays of light" - did the writer conveniently forget that exactly the same observation (staying the same size from rising to setting) applies to the moon as well! The moon does not have any "intense rays of light"! The full Moon is about 1,000,000 times fainter than the Sun
From: Wikipedia - Moonlight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight).
I was nearly going to say "Be reasonable", but the I doubt it's in your vocabulary!
;D ;D You might like to do a more little light reading: The History of Sounding Rockets by Günther Seibert (http://www.esa.int/esapub/hsr/HSR_38.pdf). ;D ;D Likely!
You are just so indoctrinated that anything that goes against your pet theory simply must be suspect.
I don't expect you to ever change you views, but others might be prepared to look further and be a little open minded.
-
Hey guys... everyone is missing the point. It doesn't matter what the refractive index of space or the upper atmosphere is. For the sun to appear next to the horizon, the refraction would have to take place very near the surface of the earth. In fact, it would have to take place practically at ground level.
Don't let Tom Bishop lead you off on an irrelevant rabbit trail so that he can dodge the relevant questions.
Yes, it is a little hard to see the connection between the temperature in mine-shafts and the required massive refraction required of sunlight!
Any spare "Looking Glasses" around of the Charles Lutwidge Dodgson variety.
-
Should we also assume that earth gets infinitely hotter the deeper we go because we've found that mines get hotter with depth?
I know you're making a joke here, but I have to refer you now to the great one himself, Rowbotham, who says pretty much exactly what you propose here. According to Earth not a Globe: the land floats on the seas, the seas hover over a layer of steam, the steam is kept boiling by the region of elemental fire.
I promise you, I'm not making that up (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm), I only WISH to be so creative!
-
Did anyone notice the light in the diagram bends in an different direction then the light in the picture?
Intikam in the picture you provided it shows the sun would appear higher then it actually is. In the diagram you show it would appear lower.
Seeing how one is a picture and the other a drawing I think we can conclude the picture is the more compelling evidence.
(http://i.imgur.com/0GUwcjo.jpg)
-
Did anyone notice the light in the diagram bends in an different direction then the light in the picture?
Intikam in the picture you provided it shows the sun would appear higher then it actually is. In the diagram you show it would appear lower.
Yes. See my original response (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4943.msg95461#msg95461) to his post. The lower refractive index should be on bottom for it to bend in the correct direction. Water has a high refractive index, air has a low refractive index.
-
Did anyone notice the light in the diagram bends in an different direction then the light in the picture?
Intikam in the picture you provided it shows the sun would appear higher then it actually is. In the diagram you show it would appear lower.
Yes. See my original response (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4943.msg95461#msg95461) to his post. The lower refractive index should be on bottom for it to bend in the correct direction. Water has a high refractive index, air has a low refractive index.
Wouldn't air have a higher refractive index than the vacuum of space though?
-
Did anyone notice the light in the diagram bends in an different direction then the light in the picture?
Intikam in the picture you provided it shows the sun would appear higher then it actually is. In the diagram you show it would appear lower.
Yes. See my original response (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4943.msg95461#msg95461) to his post. The lower refractive index should be on bottom for it to bend in the correct direction. Water has a high refractive index, air has a low refractive index.
Wouldn't air have a higher refractive index than the vacuum of space though?
Yep! It's a very slight difference though. This also contributes slightly to the sun appearing HIGHER than it actually is. (The opposite of Intikam's diagram)
-
Come on guys, the original photo of the water bending / refracting light is accurate. The second photo, is a drawing and is inacurate.
The light bends the same way, whether through air or water, maybe the angles are a bit different, but it still bends in the same direction.
The sun meets the horizon as it goes below it. The sun actually appears slightly higher in the sky than it really is, as it goes below the horizon it has actually already gone below it, but we see it delayed due to refraction. I'll draw a quick sketch and post it.
-
(http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa404/ftfcred/Ref_zpskjosm40b.png) (http://s1196.photobucket.com/user/ftfcred/media/Ref_zpskjosm40b.png.html)
-
The light bends the same way, whether through air or water, maybe the angles are a bit different, but it still bends in the same direction.
No, it always bends towards the medium with a higher index of refraction. Intikam's diagram would be roughly correct if the water and air were reversed.
-
Hey guys... everyone is missing the point. It doesn't matter what the refractive index of space or the upper atmosphere is. For the sun to appear next to the horizon, the refraction would have to take place very near the surface of the earth. In fact, it would have to take place practically at ground level.
As the viewing angle becomes more acute the apparent position becomes more distorted due to passing through a the greater volume of the moist layer. This effect is observed even in the color of the sky at noon, which tends toward white (instead of sapphire blue) near the horizon. Of course you need to have a good view of the horizon and not be looking at the sky above a hill or something. Ocean views are the best.
-
Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.
Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?
Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.
As you clearly have zero comprehension of the physics of this situation, let me explain.
For the light rays to bend as shown in the drawing above, the atmosphere of the EARTH would have to be considerably higher than that of where the sun is.
So, even though we actually do have multiple reliable space programs to inform us of the composition of space, that is largely irrelevant as there is no possible way for the sun to appear to sink below the horizon using a realistic FE model.
After review, I can revise that last statement to "there is no realistic FE model"
-
No, it always bends towards the medium with a higher index of refraction. Intikam's diagram would be roughly correct if the water and air were reversed.
Fair enough, I'm still correct then. The light bends from air towards water in the first image, then from space towards air in my image.
Thus in my minds eye, it bends the same way. ( very simple language I know, but I'm a simple person )
-
No, it always bends towards the medium with a higher index of refraction. Intikam's diagram would be roughly correct if the water and air were reversed.
Fair enough, I'm still correct then. The light bends from air towards water in the first image, then from space towards air in my image.
Thus in my minds eye, it bends the same way. ( very simple language I know, but I'm a simple person )
Are you saying space is denser then the atmosphere?
If you think of the water as the atmosphere and space as the air above the water then the Sun should appear higher. This is assuming that atmospheric pressure drops with altitude.
If the diagram is right then the atmosphere/space is denser the higher the altitude.
-
No the opposite.
It bends towards the atmosphere not away from it.
-
Oh and yes, the sun does appear higher than it actually is. That's why it is said that the sun has gone below the horizon before we see it go below.
The refraction makes the sun appear higher and therefore just above where it actually is.
-
And another thing to bear in mind is that if we're looking at the sun on the horizon, we're not seeing it through the 25 miles or so of atmosphere straight above our heads, we're looking horizontally through the atmosphere and the distance to space is much greater. I've heard it said that it's more like 200 miles of atmosphere, most of which is the denser part atmosphere nearer the ground.
-
Did anyone notice the light in the diagram bends in an different direction then the light in the picture?
Intikam in the picture you provided it shows the sun would appear higher then it actually is. In the diagram you show it would appear lower.
Seeing how one is a picture and the other a drawing I think we can conclude the picture is the more compelling evidence.
(http://i.imgur.com/0GUwcjo.jpg)
I gave as an example of refraction. We are not in the water. :)
Think but this time about this example again.
(http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.19/images/main/refraction.jpg)
No, it always bends towards the medium with a higher index of refraction. Intikam's diagram would be roughly correct if the water and air were reversed.
Surely. I don't want somebody think about me " changing the truths according to his way". This is true shape showing about refraction. But here is not a water and the atmospher isin't only an gas. There is more areas on the atmospher acting light and refracting it to a lot of possible directions. The shape is true on the atmospher but the opposite is true in the atmospher true too.
Some areas has more intense, and some areas have less intense, after that again a more intense area and less intense area. Somewhere on the atmospher is cold and later the light enters a hot area and later again cold area. So there is rising and falling humidity areas more than one. we don't know if the light coming closer or is moving away. as i have guessed it has %50 chance the light is moving away.
this is like if the system it is, it describes.
Notice: I edited first post by adding the descriptive figure.
-
Surely. I don't want somebody think about me " changing the truths according to his way". This is true shape showing about refraction. But here is not a water and the atmospher isin't only an gas. There is more areas on the atmospher acting light and refracting it to a lot of possible directions. The shape is true on the atmospher but the opposite is true in the atmospher true too.
Some areas has more intense, and some areas have less intense, after that again a more intense area and less intense area. Somewhere on the atmospher is cold and later the light enters a hot area and later again cold area. So there is rising and falling humidity areas more than one. we don't know if the light coming closer or is moving away. as i have guessed it has %50 chance the light is moving away.
this is like if the system it is, it describes.
Notice: I edited first post by adding the descriptive figure.
Good on you for thinking of possible differences throughout the atmosphere! However, for light to refract away from the normal in the atmosphere (what you're arguing), the value of the refractive index ("n") must be lower than that of a vacuum, or less than one. n is determined by c/vp through a substance. Only high energy X-Rays can have a phase velocity higher than that of light. Visible light, however, cannot. This confines its n to be higher in any medium than 1. In summation, when passing to a higher medium not of significant electromagnetic tendency, visible light will bend towards the normal, making it's light source appear slightly higher, as defined by the equation n1*sin(θ1) = n2*sin(θ2).
(Basically that equation means, refraction is based on average atomic density, which in a vacuum is 1 atom per cm3, and in air is 5 * 1019 atoms per cm3)
-
You think where is the sun stay on?
(http://i.imgsafe.org/288ba48.jpg)
-
You think where is the sun stay on?
(http://i.imgsafe.org/288ba48.jpg)
Um, what is this picture supposed to show?
-
You think where is the sun stay on?
(http://i.imgsafe.org/288ba48.jpg)
I am not sure what you are asking. It looks like what I would expect with a sun 93million miles away shining through some holes in the clouds.
-
You think where is the sun stay on?
(http://i.imgsafe.org/288ba48.jpg)
I am not sure what you are asking. It looks like what I would expect with a sun 93million miles away shining through some holes in the clouds.
Do you often look at things that are exactly 93 million miles away to get a good reference as to what that should look like?
-
You think where is the sun stay on?
(http://i.imgsafe.org/288ba48.jpg)
Um, what is this picture supposed to show?
From millions of 93 miles far away how is a sunligh effect just a little space in the clouds. And the other sides of the clouds still on darkness. Look the sky where near at the camera it is opened too. There is no difference for a mile 93 millions miles away a sun where far themselves a few kilometres.
Think a space that only 2-3 kilometres far away and the sun effecting there thru clouds. But same sun can't effect the area upside me and haven't any clouds. Just think why? Because it is not miles of 93 millions far away.
-
You think where is the sun stay on?
(http://i.imgsafe.org/288ba48.jpg)
Um, what is this picture supposed to show?
From millions of 93 miles far away how is a sunligh effect just a little space in the clouds. And the other sides of the clouds still on darkness. Look the sky where near at the camera it is opened too. There is no difference for a mile 93 millions miles away a sun where far themselves a few kilometres.
Think a space that only 2-3 kilometres far away and the sun effecting there thru clouds. But same sun can't effect the area upside me and haven't any clouds. Just think why? Because it is not miles of 93 millions far away.
I suggest you look at the thread on here regarding the sun's rays and clouds.
That picture is a perfect example.
-
You think where is the sun stay on?
(http://i.imgsafe.org/288ba48.jpg)
I am not sure what you are asking. It looks like what I would expect with a sun 93million miles away shining through some holes in the clouds.
Do you often look at things that are exactly 93 million miles away to get a good reference as to what that should look like?
All one needs is an understanding of perspective.
-
You think where is the sun stay on?
(http://i.imgsafe.org/288ba48.jpg)
I am not sure what you are asking. It looks like what I would expect with a sun 93million miles away shining through some holes in the clouds.
Do you often look at things that are exactly 93 million miles away to get a good reference as to what that should look like?
What you, Mr SmartyPants, giving us YOUR ideas, instead of simply making wisecracks about other's comments?
Maybe I can get away with saying "It looks like what I would expect with a sun a long distance away shining through some holes in the clouds."
Now just what do YOU think it looks like?
-
You don't understand what means that picture it is not my problem.
(http://i.imgsafe.org/288ba48.jpg)
You are continously saying "perspective". What a perspective if the sun is 93 millions away , is the angle of the sunlight 45 degrees like this or it must be 90 degrees. There is no another alternative that explaining with your magic word "perspective". What a magic explains everything. :)
-
So what happened here then Inti?
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/anti1.htm
(http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/images1/shim18.gif)
Rays in the east opposite the setting sun the foreground and clouds are still sunlit. Leigh Hilbert (site) caught these anti-crepuscular rays on 3rd March 2004 in Washington State.
-
You don't understand what means that picture it is not my problem.
(http://i.imgsafe.org/288ba48.jpg)
You are continously saying "perspective". What a perspective if the sun is 93 millions away , is the angle of the sunlight 45 degrees like this or it must be 90 degrees. There is no another alternative that explaining with your magic word "perspective". What a magic explains everything. :)
OK all you Flat Earth experts that will not accept a "perspective" explanation:
Please explain how high the sun is in this picture. Unless some perspective is involved that sun would seem to be at maybe 2 to 3 km high, certainly no more!
But, I believe you said "We have some calculating about sun positions that proves it is about 5.000 kms far. But it changes time by time because the sun is moving. sometimes 3.000 miles, sometimes 10.000 miles."
So how do YOU explain this picture?
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Crepuscular%20Rays%20in%20Scotland_zpsnvn54glq.jpg)
Crepuscular Rays in Scotland
Now that picture was taken over a lake in Scotland - probably 3,600 km north of northern most excursion of the sun - the Tropic of Cancer!
So whatever you try to say that sun has to be at the very closest 3,600 km away, and in reality must be much more than that!
So all you experts (especially İntikam) , are you going to tell me that it is very close, when we KNOW it simply cannot be over that lake - just NOT POSSIBLE, even for a Flat Earth!
You simply have to agree that it is simply a perspective effect - the sun is NOT directly above that lake.
-
You are continously saying "perspective". What a perspective if the sun is 93 millions away , is the angle of the sunlight 45 degrees like this or it must be 90 degrees. There is no another alternative that explaining with your magic word "perspective". What a magic explains everything. :)
What does this picture mean?
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/Dsc01598-2_zpsvhphretn.jpg)
Is the sun less than 100 meters up? It looks like it is just above the trees. Maybe if I walked to where the road goes around the corner, I could throw a rock and hit the sun. Do you agree?
-
Good picture, you silenced the thread.
-
Good picture, you silenced the thread.
Funny how that happens!
But sometime I really would like an answer to just where they think the sun is in these pictures!
-
What does this picture mean?
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/Dsc01598-2_zpsvhphretn.jpg)
looks like some trees m8
Is the sun less than 100 meters up?
No.
It looks like it is just above the trees.
No, it doesn't. You can't even see the sun in this photo.
Maybe if I walked to where the road goes around the corner, I could throw a rock and hit the sun. Do you agree?
I mean, on a purely hypothetical level, you might be able to hurl a rock at higher-than-exit velocity, and then perhaps you might be able to aim well enough to hit it. Speaking from empirical experience, however, it's extremely unlikely that you would meet either of those prerequisites.
-
What does this picture mean?
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/Dsc01598-2_zpsvhphretn.jpg)
Looks to me like someone is shining a bright spotlight behind a row of trees.
-
What does this picture mean?
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/Dsc01598-2_zpsvhphretn.jpg)
looks like some trees m8
Is the sun less than 100 meters up?
No.
It looks like it is just above the trees.
No, it doesn't. You can't even see the sun in this photo.
And you can't extend those rays to where they all meet?
What about this one?
(http://i.imgsafe.org/288ba48.jpg)
You can see the sun here, but does that mean that the sun is IN those clouds?
-
What does this picture mean?
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/Dsc01598-2_zpsvhphretn.jpg)
looks like some trees m8
Is the sun less than 100 meters up?
No.
It looks like it is just above the trees.
No, it doesn't. You can't even see the sun in this photo.
Maybe if I walked to where the road goes around the corner, I could throw a rock and hit the sun. Do you agree?
I mean, on a purely hypothetical level, you might be able to hurl a rock at higher-than-exit velocity, and then perhaps you might be able to aim well enough to hit it. Speaking from empirical experience, however, it's extremely unlikely that you would meet either of those prerequisites.
So we can all agree then that pictures of rays of sunlight appearing to converge just above some clouds, does not mean the sun is just above those clouds.
What does this picture mean?
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/Dsc01598-2_zpsvhphretn.jpg)
Looks to me like someone is shining a bright spotlight behind a row of trees.
Not to worry, it was good old natural sunlight. No fakery shenanigans here. I don't have a spotlight (or in this case to get the same pattern of rays, a floodlight would be better) that bright. There are floodlights that are pretty bright, but they're also rather large, and I still don't know if they would be bright enough to get the same effect during the daytime.