The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on December 11, 2018, 06:44:05 PM

Title: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on December 11, 2018, 06:44:05 PM
This morning I caught a photo of some beautifully-lit clouds:

(https://i.imgur.com/eNHNZsb.jpg)

Those clouds are lit from the bottom, and in fact appear brighter than the white things in the image. The lit sides face the sunrise, which suggests that they are being lit by the sun.

I don't think that a sun that's thousands of miles high can light clouds that are less than 10 miles high, but I'm curious to hear what that the FE side makes of this.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: junker on December 11, 2018, 07:49:41 PM
FYI, I edited your post/image to a different version that doesn't include the geotags. I assume you don't want people knowing exactly where you live.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2018, 08:27:10 PM
If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Spingo on December 11, 2018, 08:31:31 PM
If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?

It’s actually a sunrise if you read the post correctly. For his perspective give the horizon would indeed be red. For someone 1000 miles to the east I would be late morning and bright, while 1000 miles to the west it will still be dark. Same sun at a constant brightness but different perspectives due to location.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curiosity File on December 11, 2018, 08:46:15 PM
What a great photo .
I saw something interesting on the way home yesterday.
The sun had gone down below the horizon of the mountain ridge to the west of me. Even though I could no longer see the sun the bottom of the patchy clouds above me were lite up. My elevation at that point is 125 feet. I could also see the shadow line of the mountain ridge to the wast cast onto the mountains to the east which are 3,000 feet higher in elevation than the ones to the west are.  I ascend up into the mountains to the east to get home. You ascend quit rapidly from 125 feet in elevation to 3,500 in elevation.
I acceded  above the shadow line where I could see a portion of the sun above the horizon and still see the bottom of the clouds lite up. Quite beautiful.

Now, I'm going to describe a phenomena I witness quite often in these mountains.
A lot of times there will be two or more layers of clouds at different elevations due to air temps and types of clouds.
One layer will be dens and cold air has it at a very low elevation far below the peaks on the mountains while the other clouds will be much higher than the mountains.
As the sun sets, I'm descending the mountain from above the lower layer of clouds and can see the sun as it shins on both the TOP of the lower layer and BOTTOM of the top layer. Quite a beautiful sight I must say.
I watch the sun sink below the lower layer and can no longer see the sun but still see the bottom of the top layer still lit up.
As I descend below the bottom layer once again the sun becomes viable and I see both layers of clouds lite up on their bottoms.
Eventually the sun drops below the horizon and of course for a short period of time the bottoms of both layers of clouds are still lite up.

Here's a part of this phenomena that shows curvature along with sun set rather the sun just moving off in the distance.
You can see the bottoms of the clouds lite up at a greater distance towards the horizon long after the ones closer to you go dark.
That is pretty good evidence the sun sets over a curvature rather than it just getting farther and farther away while remaining at 3,000 feet above the earth.

By the way I saw your signature before you changed it

Also clouds can be 6,000 feet, about 1 mile above the ground or lower from the ground trapped in temperature layers such as I witness in my area. A far reach from 3,000 miles.
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 11, 2018, 08:52:44 PM
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/i1d62r.jpg)

San Diego, 40 minutes before sunrise on the morning of November 14th..

According to TimeandDate (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?month=11&day=14&year=2018&hour=5&min=40&sec=0&n=770&ntxt=San+Diego&earth=0), the sun was over the South Atlantic off the coast of Brazil.

That's over 6200 miles away from San Diego.
The sun had risen in El Paso, TX. (600 miles to the east)
The sun was just about to rise in Tucson, AZ. (365 miles to the east)

The clouds being illuminated were at an altitude of ~15,000 ft., 50-100 miles SE of San Diego. 

In answer to Tom's question, someone at the altitude and location of the illuminated clouds would have seen the sun, risen above the horizon.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on December 11, 2018, 08:53:52 PM
If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?
You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

FYI, I edited your post/image to a different version that doesn't include the geotags. I assume you don't want people knowing exactly where you live.
I thought that I blocked location services to Camera… either way thanks.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2018, 09:13:54 PM
If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?
You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

Then it seems that your question has been answered. Those clouds are seeing a reddish sun at the horizon
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on December 11, 2018, 09:28:23 PM
If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?
You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

Then it seems that your question has been answered. Those clouds are seeing a reddish sun at the horizon
Not my point. The clouds are illuminated from the bottom, which means that, if the Earth is flat and the sun is thousands of miles above it, then it must be something other than the sun. The reddish sun at the horizon is the RE explanation.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 11, 2018, 09:32:19 PM
If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?
You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

Then it seems that your question has been answered. Those clouds are seeing a reddish sun at the horizon
Not my point. The clouds are illuminated from the bottom, which means that, if the Earth is flat and the sun is thousands of miles above it, then it must be something other than the sun. The reddish sun at the horizon is the RE explanation.
But the FEH perspective hypothesis says the clouds are 'seeing' the sun at the horizon, thus the light is coming up from that 'level' to strike them. This is part of why Bobby (and myself tbh) feel the 'bendy light' hypothesis works better for FE, than perspective. FE perspective is basically 'the Earth is flat, so this is how things must be' and is thus near impossible to falsify or prove. 'Bendy light' has the potential for both of those things to be true of it. Which tbh is probably why it fell out of favor.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2018, 09:44:02 PM
If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?
You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

Then it seems that your question has been answered. Those clouds are seeing a reddish sun at the horizon
Not my point. The clouds are illuminated from the bottom, which means that, if the Earth is flat and the sun is thousands of miles above it, then it must be something other than the sun. The reddish sun at the horizon is the RE explanation.

If those clouds were a mirror, would you see the sun at the horizon?

That's what the clouds are in this case; a mirror. Those clouds a little higher up in altitude are seeing a sun that is higher above the horizon, and which is not sending out as much red light.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on December 11, 2018, 09:46:24 PM
But the FEH perspective hypothesis says the clouds are 'seeing' the sun at the horizon, thus the light is coming up from that 'level' to strike them. This is part of why Bobby (and myself tbh) feel the 'bendy light' hypothesis works better for FE, than perspective. FE perspective is basically 'the Earth is flat, so this is how things must be' and is thus near impossible to falsify or prove. 'Bendy light' has the potential for both of those things to be true of it. Which tbh is probably why it fell out of favor.
Gee, it's almost like light bends with the differential equation dy/dx ∝ y2sin(x-x0).

Seriously though, if light doesn't go in straight lines, then how does it move and how does it preserve Newton's third law?

If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?
You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

Then it seems that your question has been answered. Those clouds are seeing a reddish sun at the horizon
Not my point. The clouds are illuminated from the bottom, which means that, if the Earth is flat and the sun is thousands of miles above it, then it must be something other than the sun. The reddish sun at the horizon is the RE explanation.

If those clouds were a mirror, would you see the sun at the horizon?

That's what the clouds are in this case; a mirror. Those clouds a little higher up in altitude are seeing a sun that is higher above the horizon, and which is not sending out as much red light.
Clouds aren't mirrors.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curiosity File on December 11, 2018, 09:59:12 PM
If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?
You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

Then it seems that your question has been answered. Those clouds are seeing a reddish sun at the horizon
To start with Tom what do the colors of the clouds have to do with the OP question?
That's off topic.
Back on topic. How does the light from the sun reflect off the bottom of clouds that are no more than 3-3/4 to 4 miles up and as low as 1 miles up when the sun is claimed by FES wiki to be 3,000 miles up.

But to answer your question. "If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?" The answer is  NO, Not only do I not think so I no for a fact that the sun is a much brighter orange and yellow than the color of the clouds when looking at the phenomena from the vantage point of the elevation of the clouds.
As I described in my earlier post, I've been there. 
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2018, 10:03:24 PM
Clouds aren't mirrors.

Sure they are. You don't believe that we are seeing reflected light?
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 11, 2018, 10:08:07 PM
If those clouds were a mirror, would you see the sun at the horizon?

That's what the clouds are in this case; a mirror. Those clouds a little higher up in altitude are seeing a sun that is higher above the horizon, and which is not sending out as much red light.

I can't picture this.

With h2>h1, show me how that can be possible.

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/af7w9w.jpg)
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on December 11, 2018, 10:09:33 PM
Clouds aren't mirrors.

Sure they are. You don't believe that we are seeing reflected light?
We're not seeing reflected light. Do you see the landscape miles away when it's overcast?
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2018, 10:16:50 PM
Clouds aren't mirrors.

Sure they are. You don't believe that we are seeing reflected light?
If the bottom of the clouds are reflecting the sun light, then that means that the sun light must be coming from below the bottom of the clouds, right?  How does that work in FET?
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 11, 2018, 10:18:06 PM
Clouds aren't mirrors.

Sure they are. You don't believe that we are seeing reflected light?
We're not seeing reflected light. Do you see the landscape miles away when it's overcast?
Sorry if I'm speaking out of turn, but I'd agree with Tom that clouds illuminated by the sun are reflecting the sun's light. Clouds aren't self-illuminating. The reddish glow on the underside of clouds is reflected light from the sun setting or rising.

"Mirror" might be an exaggeration since we aren't seeing the sun in the clouds, but we are seeing the reflected light from the sun on the clouds.

My question, though, however you want to put is, is how is the sun getting an angle on the "mirror" for its light to be reflected? Perspective doesn't gain the sun that angle.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2018, 10:21:26 PM
If those clouds were a mirror, would you see the sun at the horizon?

That's what the clouds are in this case; a mirror. Those clouds a little higher up in altitude are seeing a sun that is higher above the horizon, and which is not sending out as much red light.

I can't picture this.

With h2>h1, show me how that can be possible.

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/af7w9w.jpg)

h1 and h2 are not constant due to perspective. In that illustration the lands are not ascending as they recede, for example.

The lands ascend in altitude, the sun (or the image of the sun) descends in altitude, and everything meets at a finite distance away, rather than the infinite distance away as imagined in the Continuous Universe model of the Ancient Greeks.

(https://i.imgur.com/nDeaSsG.png)
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Spingo on December 11, 2018, 10:27:22 PM
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/i1d62r.jpg)

San Diego, 40 minutes before sunrise on the morning of November 14th..

According to TimeandDate (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?month=11&day=14&year=2018&hour=5&min=40&sec=0&n=770&ntxt=San+Diego&earth=0), the sun was over the South Atlantic off the coast of Brazil.

That's over 6200 miles away from San Diego.
The sun had risen in El Paso, TX. (600 miles to the east)
The sun was just about to rise in Tucson, AZ. (365 miles to the east)

The clouds being illuminated were at an altitude of ~15,000 ft., 50-100 miles SE of San Diego. 

In answer to Tom's question, someone at the altitude and location of the illuminated clouds would have seen the sun, risen above the horizon.

Nice shot Bobby.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 11, 2018, 10:30:32 PM
Tom? Perspective is perceptual. The land doesn't physical rise. H values don't physically change.

As the apparent angle of the sun changes, so does the angle of the plane of the bottom of the clouds. Never does the plane of something higher descend below a parallel plane below it. They both appear to descend, but the sun's angle will and can never decrease greater than the plane of the clouds.

What you're depicting isn't even what Rowbotham's describes as the Law of Perspective.

Try it. Set up a model and show me how perspective accomplishes what you describe. It won't work.

I can make it work by "cheating," or by invoking methods other than perspective. But the perspective explanation is sleight of hand. It doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 11, 2018, 10:32:32 PM
Nice shot Bobby.
Wish I could take credit, but it's by a local photography with a knack/skill for getting some amazing sunrise and sunset shots in San Diego.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2018, 10:33:35 PM
Tom? Perspective is perceptual. The land doesn't physical rise. H values don't physically change.

As the apparent angle of the sun changes, so does the angle of the plane of the bottom of the clouds. Never does the plane of something higher descend below a parallel plane below it. They both appear to descend, but the sun's angle will and can never decrease greater than the plane of the clouds.

What you're depicting isn't even what Rowbotham's describes as the Law of Perspective.

Try it. Set up a model and show me how perspective accomplishes what you describe. It won't work.

I can make it work by "cheating," or by invoking methods other than perspective. But the perspective explanation is sleight of hand. It doesn't work that way.

Consider a rail road track perspective scene. Do you agree that the two metal railroad tracks on the railroad in such a scene appear to get so close together that they eventually become one, for all intents? And, do you agree that those tracks have not really become one?

That is what is happening with perspective; the sun is merging into the earth/atmosphere/etc via perspective.

Euclid imagined that this would not happen for an infinite distance away; but he never really demonstrated his ideas. We do see things merge, as with the railroad example above, at non-infinite distances.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Spingo on December 11, 2018, 10:34:22 PM
If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?
You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

Then it seems that your question has been answered. Those clouds are seeing a reddish sun at the horizon
Not my point. The clouds are illuminated from the bottom, which means that, if the Earth is flat and the sun is thousands of miles above it, then it must be something other than the sun. The reddish sun at the horizon is the RE explanation.

If those clouds were a mirror, would you see the sun at the horizon?

That's what the clouds are in this case; a mirror. Those clouds a little higher up in altitude are seeing a sun that is higher above the horizon, and which is not sending out as much red light.

Sorry Tom but that is clearly false. The sun is sending out a constant level of light 24/7 it never changes. It is we who change constantly by virtue of our position. The colour is due to red light having a shorter wavelength and less prone to scattering. It has absolutely nothing to do with decreased output from the sun if that’s what you are implying.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on December 11, 2018, 10:37:29 PM
Clouds aren't mirrors.

Sure they are. You don't believe that we are seeing reflected light?
We're not seeing reflected light. Do you see the landscape miles away when it's overcast?
Sorry if I'm speaking out of turn, but I'd agree with Tom that clouds illuminated by the sun are reflecting the sun's light. Clouds aren't self-illuminating. The reddish glow on the underside of clouds is reflected light from the sun setting or rising.

"Mirror" might be an exaggeration since we aren't seeing the sun in the clouds, but we are seeing the reflected light from the sun on the clouds.

My question, though, however you want to put is, is how is the sun getting an angle on the "mirror" for its light to be reflected? Perspective doesn't gain the sun that angle.
It's only "reflected" in the sense that moonlight is reflected sunlight. Clouds are colloids, they scatter light.


Tom, riddle me this: if I'm hang-gliding from the center of a cumulus cloud, then it will extend almost to eye level from my POV, and probably below eye level depending on the topography of the bottom. If the horizon extends up to eye level, then how does the sun fit between the horizon and the cloud?
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Spingo on December 11, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
Tom? Perspective is perceptual. The land doesn't physical rise. H values don't physically change.

As the apparent angle of the sun changes, so does the angle of the plane of the bottom of the clouds. Never does the plane of something higher descend below a parallel plane below it. They both appear to descend, but the sun's angle will and can never decrease greater than the plane of the clouds.

What you're depicting isn't even what Rowbotham's describes as the Law of Perspective.

Try it. Set up a model and show me how perspective accomplishes what you describe. It won't work.

I can make it work by "cheating," or by invoking methods other than perspective. But the perspective explanation is sleight of hand. It doesn't work that way.

Consider a rail road track perspective scene. Do you agree that the rail road tracks in such a scene appear to get so close together that they eventually become one, for all intents? And, do you agree that those tracks have not really become one?

That is what is happening with perspective; the sun is merging into the earth/atmosphere/etc via perspective.

Elucid imagined that this would not happen for an infinite distance away; but he never really demonstrated his ideas.

No... the sun is from the perspective of that viewer looking at the sunset, dipping below the horizon. For someone 2000 miles to the west it’s still high in the sky. Just to reinforce the point, the output of light levels from the sun does not change, as far as we are concerned.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2018, 10:46:44 PM
Lets answer this question: Consider a rail road track perspective scene. Do you agree that the two metal railroad tracks on the railroad in such a scene appear to get so close together that they eventually become one, for all intents? And, do you agree that those tracks have not really become one?

Do you, as Euclid asserts would happen under his model, believe that they have become one to your vision at an infinite distance away?

If you agree that the railroad tracks appears to merge a finite distance away, then it must also be possible for the sun to merge a finite distance away.

From previous conversations on this topic, your next course of action will be to quote this post and bold "appears to" as some sort of "gotcha;" but I'll save you the trouble and answer it now: we have never claimed that the sun really physically sets into the earth.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on December 11, 2018, 10:47:34 PM
Lets answer this question: Consider a rail road track perspective scene. Do you agree that the rail road tracks in such a scene appear to get so close together that they eventually become one, for all intents? And, do you agree that those tracks have not really become one?

Do you, as Elucid asserts would happen under his model, believe that they have become one to your vision at an infinite distance away?

If you agree that the railroad tracks merge a finite distance away, then it must also be possible for the sun to merge a finite distance away.
Let's table this for now; I know that arguing against perspective without preparation is a lost cause. You should address my other point, i.e. the hang gliding by cloud one.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 11, 2018, 10:52:10 PM
Lets answer this question: Consider a rail road track perspective scene. Do you agree that the rail road tracks in such a scene appear to get so close together that they eventually become one, for all intents? And, do you agree that those tracks have not really become one?

Do you, as Elucid asserts would happen under his model, believe that they have become one to your vision at an infinite distance away?

If you agree that the railroad tracks appear to merge a finite distance away, then it must also be possible for the sun to merge a finite distance away.

Your next course of action will be to quote this post and bold "appears to" in some sort of "gotcha;" but we never claimed that the sun really set into the earth.

Note that you had to include "to your vision" in the statement attributed to Euclid. (No idea if Euclid ever said that, but the accuracy of that's a distraction. We'll go with it.)

The railroad tracks don't actually merge. They only appear to, "to your vision."  It's a perceptual thing.

Perspective doesn't indicate actual distances or heights or other spatial dimensions are actually changing for the objects increasing in distance away from your point of perspective. The sun, over a flat earth, will still be the same height over the flat earth. Perspective doesn't make it descend. It only appears to descend.

And it does so at a rate inverse to the distance. It's not linear. The further it gets, the less the angle of descent.

Which is why I long ago argued with you that Perspective can't cause the sun to reach a horizon on a flat earth. You don't have enough distance for the sun to achieve away from you for the sun to ever get below a certain angle.

The ceiling represented by the plane base of those clouds also "descends" -- apparently, "to your vision" -- according to perspective. So, unless you have bendy light, the sun can never achieve an angle less than that cloud base without physically getting to an actual height lower than that cloud base plane altitude. Perspective isn't the answer.

Let's table this for now; I know that arguing against perspective without preparation is a lost cause.

Sorry. I should know by now this "debate" about Perspective never resolves. I've tried to explain it many different times and way. It never changes.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 11, 2018, 11:02:58 PM
If those clouds were a mirror, would you see the sun at the horizon?

That's what the clouds are in this case; a mirror. Those clouds a little higher up in altitude are seeing a sun that is higher above the horizon, and which is not sending out as much red light.

I can't picture this.

With h2>h1, show me how that can be possible.

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/af7w9w.jpg)

h1 and h2 are not constant due to perspective. In that illustration the lands are not ascending as they recede, for example.

The lands ascend in altitude, the sun (or the image of the sun) descends in altitude, and everything meets at a finite distance away, rather than the infinite distance away as imagined in the Continuous Universe model of the Ancient Greeks.

(https://i.imgur.com/nDeaSsG.png)

Hey Tom,

I wanted to know if I'm looking at your diagram correctly.

The heavy black line is the surface of the earth right? So you're proposing an optical effect (perspective?) that drops the apparent position of the sun below the altitude of the clouds? If we made the 'earth line' horizontal, your sun would be at a very low altitude. Your diagram also places the sun at the same altitude as the clouds?


BTW: Yes, Bobby has posted some very cool pics on TFES.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2018, 11:08:22 PM
Lets answer this question: Consider a rail road track perspective scene. Do you agree that the rail road tracks in such a scene appear to get so close together that they eventually become one, for all intents? And, do you agree that those tracks have not really become one?

Do you, as Elucid asserts would happen under his model, believe that they have become one to your vision at an infinite distance away?

If you agree that the railroad tracks appear to merge a finite distance away, then it must also be possible for the sun to merge a finite distance away.

Your next course of action will be to quote this post and bold "appears to" in some sort of "gotcha;" but we never claimed that the sun really set into the earth.

Note that you had to include "to your vision" in the statement attributed to Euclid. (No idea if Euclid ever said that, but the accuracy of that's a distraction. We'll go with it.)

The railroad tracks don't actually merge. They only appear to, "to your vision."  It's a perceptual thing.

That's right. And the sun doesn't really crash into the earth. It's a perceptual thing.

Quote
Perspective doesn't indicate actual distances or heights or other spatial dimensions are actually changing for the objects increasing in distance away from your point of perspective. The sun, over a flat earth, will still be the same height over the flat earth. Perspective doesn't make it descend. It only appears to descend.

Yes. And again, we never claimed that the sun was actually descending and crashing into the earth...

Quote
And it does so at a rate inverse to the distance. It's not linear. The further it gets, the less the angle of descent.

Which is why I long ago argued with you that Perspective can't cause the sun to reach a horizon on a flat earth. You don't have enough distance for the sun to achieve away from you for the sun to ever get below a certain angle.

That is correct if you assume that the perspective lines don't merge until infinity... Yet, you agreed that it is possible to see rail road tracks merge.

Will you believe hypothetical math about infinity, or your own eyes?

If we can't see it, why should we believe that particlar factoid about how perspective lines work with infinities?
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 11, 2018, 11:21:54 PM
I'm a sucker.

Where in this red herring refutation of infinites and Greeks is perspective ever accounting for a higher plane descending below a lower plane, perceptual or otherwise?

Use Rowbotham's diagram.

The clouds are at one altitude. The sun is at a higher altitude.

The ground plane appears to rise to a horizon point, H. When is the light path from the sun ever able to achieve an angle to the bottom of the clouds?

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/2usjx1f.jpg)

The perceptual plane that is the bottom of the clouds doesn't extend horizontally while the ground slopes up and the sun's plane slopes down to meet it. It too, slopes down. And, if you're buying Rowbotham, because it is at a lower elevation, it meets the ground plane well before the sun ever does, at some point at or beyond H (whatever finite value that is, which I can never get you to quantify.)

Let's don't just draw lines. Do an experiment. Position a mirror facing the ground but above your head. Then place a light source somewhere further away but at a height higher than the mirror. Show me how you can make it far enough away so that you can see the light source in the mirror. Perspective will cause the distant light source to appear at an angle lower than your view to the mirror, but that won't place the light source below the level of the mirror. That's what perspective does. It's makes things appear to be smaller, lower, closer together. But it doesn't physically make dimensions or intervals smaller. The light will still (and always) be above the mirror.

I'd do it, but I'm a bit tired of performing these practical demos and having them have zero persuasive power. I invite you to do it and show me how it is possible. Perspective doesn't work the way you are applying it. (It doesn't even work the way Rowbotham describes, but even his rationale doesn't salvage perspective as the explanation for how a sun at a higher altitude illuminates the bottom of clouds at a lower altitude.)
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2018, 11:51:44 PM
Bobby, you do have persuasive power. I accept everything you have presented and demonstrated. My objections are only with the logical consequences.

Lets look at your experiment. We can take your preconditioned belief that railroad tracks will appear to meet in the distance and do the following.

Lets take that straight length of railroad track and flip it vertically on its side. We now have one metal railroad track atop another:

|:

The vertical distance between these metal railroad tracks is, say, 3 feet. Again, you have already agreed that they will appear to meet in the distance.

If we have a miniature camera on the bottom rail, looking up at a small horizontal mirror positioned 8 inches above it, which faces the bottom track horizontally; perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet; does it not follow that the camera, when looking at the reflection, will record the tracks meeting at the horizon?

If this does follow, then the conclusion we were looking for has been met. The mirror caught sight of something above it.

This is really no different than seeing a plane in the distance appearing to be lower than your kitchen ceiling when you look out your kitchen window in the morning. One might scratch their head in wonder how an airplane could seem lower in altitude than their kitchen ceiling.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 12, 2018, 12:09:20 AM
Quote
...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...

No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."

Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2018, 12:22:29 AM
Quote
...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...

No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."

Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."

Since these are facts that we all agree with, then I don't believe that this is an experiment that needs to be conducted. There is no controversy with these assertions. We are putting empirical facts together, not hypothetical facts together. If you do see me claim something hypothetical, let me know.

If you don't tilt the mirror then you won't see the horizon. If the mirror is perfectly horizontal then you will always only see the ground when you look up at it.

Recall that the analogy this comes from was the light reflecting off of the clouds; which can reflect light like mirrors, but are not mirrors positioned perfectly horizontal. The clouds can see the horizon, and can receive its reddish light. Higher clouds will be higher in altitude and will be seeing the sun higher above the horizon where the light isn't as reddish. I don't see where the "needing to be perfectly horizontal" piece comes in.

The same reasoning applies if you have a mirror over your head. If it is facing horizontal it will only show the ground. If it is slightly tilted then it will be possible to see a plane in the distance that is much higher in altitude than the mirror. Should that observation be a shock or a mystery? It is none more shocking than seeing a plane apparently below your kitchen ceiling when looking out your kitchen window.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curiosity File on December 12, 2018, 12:26:51 AM
I'm a sucker.

Where in this red herring refutation of infinites and Greeks is perspective ever accounting for a higher plane descending below a lower plane, perceptual or otherwise?

Use Rowbotham's diagram.

The clouds are at one altitude. The sun is at a higher altitude.

The ground plane appears to rise to a horizon point, H. When is the light path from the sun ever able to achieve an angle to the bottom of the clouds?

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/2usjx1f.jpg)

The perceptual plane that is the bottom of the clouds doesn't extend horizontally while the ground slopes up and the sun's plane slopes down to meet it. It too, slopes down. And, if you're buying Rowbotham, because it is at a lower elevation, it meets the ground plane well before the sun ever does, at some point at or beyond H (whatever finite value that is, which I can never get you to quantify.)

Let's don't just draw lines. Do an experiment. Position a mirror facing the ground but above your head. Then place a light source somewhere further away but at a height higher than the mirror. Show me how you can make it far enough away so that you can see the light source in the mirror. Perspective will cause the distant light source to appear at an angle lower than your view to the mirror, but that won't place the light source below the level of the mirror. That's what perspective does. It's makes things appear to be smaller, lower, closer together. But it doesn't physically make dimensions or intervals smaller. The light will still (and always) be above the mirror.

I'd do it, but I'm a bit tired of performing these practical demos and having them have zero persuasive power. I invite you to do it and show me how it is possible. Perspective doesn't work the way you are applying it. (It doesn't even work the way Rowbotham describes, but even his rationale doesn't salvage perspective as the explanation for how a sun at a higher altitude illuminates the bottom of clouds at a lower altitude.)
Bobby, try moving the viewer point to the center rather than under the clouds.

Example;
I'm standing on a mountaintop of 5,000 feet in elevation. (point A)
to the east of me 100 miles away clouds are at 15,000 feet (point B)
To the west of me at 50 miles the horizon line is at 4,000 feet in elevation. (point C)
I can no longer see the sun but I can see the bottom of the clouds lite up by the sun.



 



Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: junker on December 12, 2018, 12:47:10 AM
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/i1d62r.jpg)

San Diego, 40 minutes before sunrise on the morning of November 14th..

According to TimeandDate (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?month=11&day=14&year=2018&hour=5&min=40&sec=0&n=770&ntxt=San+Diego&earth=0), the sun was over the South Atlantic off the coast of Brazil.

That's over 6200 miles away from San Diego.
The sun had risen in El Paso, TX. (600 miles to the east)
The sun was just about to rise in Tucson, AZ. (365 miles to the east)

The clouds being illuminated were at an altitude of ~15,000 ft., 50-100 miles SE of San Diego. 

In answer to Tom's question, someone at the altitude and location of the illuminated clouds would have seen the sun, risen above the horizon.

Nice shot Bobby.

Do me a favor and refrain from “me too” posts in the upper fora unless you’re going to contribute to the topic. No warning for now but it is low-content.

Also, it is well-known that Bobby is good at taking photos.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: stack on December 12, 2018, 01:48:39 AM
Quote
...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...

No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."

Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."

Since these are facts that we all agree with, then I don't believe that this is an experiment that needs to be conducted. There is no controversy with these assertions. We are putting empirical facts together, not hypothetical facts together. If you do see me claim something hypothetical, let me know.

If you don't tilt the mirror then you won't see the horizon. If the mirror is perfectly horizontal then you will always only see the ground when you look up at it.

Recall that the analogy this comes from was the light reflecting off of the clouds; which can reflect light like mirrors, but are not mirrors positioned perfectly horizontal. The clouds can see the horizon, and can receive its reddish light. Higher clouds will be higher in altitude and will be seeing the sun higher above the horizon where the light isn't as reddish. I don't see where the "needing to be perfectly horizontal" piece comes in.

The same reasoning applies if you have a mirror over your head. If it is facing horizontal it will only show the ground. If it is slightly tilted then it will be possible to see a plane in the distance that is much higher in altitude than the mirror. Should that observation be a shock or a mystery? It is none more shocking than seeing a plane apparently below your kitchen ceiling when looking out your kitchen window.

It's not a perspective issue. No matter how far away the light source is, the straight rays emanating from a higher height (in this case, Sun: 3000 miles, Clouds: 15000') will not shine UP to the underside of the lower object.

Case in point, Max's Everest shadow thread - A peak lower than Everest casts a rising shadow on Everest - The only way that can occur is if the light rays are emanating from a light source lower than the lower peak:


https://media.istockphoto.com/videos/mt-everest-at-sunset-video-id539252432


https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11467.0
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2018, 02:06:03 AM
That's an easy one. What would observers spaced 200 feet apart up the side of the mountain see?

First, if that second mountain that casts the shadow did not exist, the bottom observer would see the sun set into the horizon as normally, and each observer at higher altitudes, going up the mountain, would see the sun take a little longer to set.

However, since there is a second mountain in the way of the horizon, the bottom observer will see the sun intersect the mountain first, and the top observers will see the sun intersect the mountain last.

Every spot on the mountain is like an observer. The darkness and lightness is what an observer would see of the sun.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curiosity File on December 12, 2018, 02:06:42 AM
Quote
...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...

No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."

Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."

 
   

Since these are facts that we all agree with, then I don't believe that this is an experiment that needs to be conducted. There is no controversy with these assertions. We are putting empirical facts together, not hypothetical facts together. If you do see me claim something hypothetical that no one agrees with, let me know.

If you don't tilt the mirror then you won't see the horizon. If the mirror is perfectly horizontal then you will always only see the ground when you look up at it.

Recall that the analogy this comes from was the light reflecting off of the clouds; which can reflect light like mirrors, but are not mirrors positioned perfectly horizontal. The clouds can see the horizon. I don't see where the "needing to be perfectly horizontal" piece comes in.

The same reasoning applies if you have a mirror over your head. If it is facing horizontal it will only show the ground. If it is slightly tilted then it will be possible to see a plane in the distance that is much higher in altitude than the mirror. Should that observation be a shock? It is none more shocking than seeing a plane apparently below your kitchen ceiling when looking out your kitchen window.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2018, 02:12:20 AM
Quote
Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.

What makes you think that the light is coming from the bottom? The red parts of the clouds in such pictures can see horizontally to their reddish horizon. We have established and agreed that if "9 out of 10 doctors agree" could go up to the altitude of his red clouds, that he would be looking at a red horizon. The light is coming from the horizon.

Here is an image:

(https://benafiaskys.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/img_1093_2.jpg)

If a part of the cloud is lit, then that part of the cloud can see the sun/horizon. If it is in shadow, then it can't see the sun/horizon.

And, once again, should a piece hanging off of the underside of the cloud happen to see an airplane near the horizon, it does not mean that the airplane must be at a lower altitude than the cloud, anymore than seeing an airplane out of your kitchen window should mean that the airplane is lower than your ceiling.

Another:

(https://wallpaperstock.net/wallpapers/thumbs1/49478wide.jpg)

Bright = Can see the sun
Dark = Cannot see the sun

Simple.

In the above image the sun isn't even below, or touching, the horizon, yet the clouds are still lit "from the bottom".

In truth it is the bottom parts sticking out from the bottom of the cloud that can best see the sun.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curiosity File on December 12, 2018, 02:31:49 AM
Quote
Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.

What makes you think that the light is coming from the bottom? The red parts of the clouds in such pictures can see horizontally to their reddish horizon. We have established and agreed that if "9 out of 10 doctors agree" could go up to the altitude of his red clouds, that he would be looking at a red horizon. The light is coming from the horizon.

That's right Tom, the light source  is coming from the horizon which is at a lower altitude than the clouds. Since it travels through the lower most parts of the atmosphere it becomes more red than the lighter colors the higher the sun is in the sky.
Thanks for making the RE case.

Also I pointed out in my earlier post that at altitude where I witnessed the color of the bottom of the clouds at the point I was at to not be the same brighter orange and yellow of the setting sun from that altitude. Go back and read my posts.

Non of which addresses the fact that I pointed out the fallacies in both your mirror theory and shrinking train track theory.   
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curiosity File on December 12, 2018, 02:34:52 AM
Quote
...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...

No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."

Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."


Since these are facts that we all agree with, then I don't believe that this is an experiment that needs to be conducted. There is no controversy with these assertions. We are putting empirical facts together, not hypothetical facts together. If you do see me claim something hypothetical that no one agrees with, let me know.

If you don't tilt the mirror then you won't see the horizon. If the mirror is perfectly horizontal then you will always only see the ground when you look up at it.

Recall that the analogy this comes from was the light reflecting off of the clouds; which can reflect light like mirrors, but are not mirrors positioned perfectly horizontal. The clouds can see the horizon. I don't see where the "needing to be perfectly horizontal" piece comes in.

The same reasoning applies if you have a mirror over your head. If it is facing horizontal it will only show the ground. If it is slightly tilted then it will be possible to see a plane in the distance that is much higher in altitude than the mirror. Should that observation be a shock? It is none more shocking than seeing a plane apparently below your kitchen ceiling when looking out your kitchen window.
Even though you can see a plane out your kitchen window that appears to be ceiling height you can NOT see it in a mirror on your sealing. If you started angling the mirror, before it would reflect the image of the plan back at you, you would no longer see the reflective side of the mirror. Move the mirror farther away as to represent clouds in the distance the angle would be even less before you loss sight of the reflective side of the mirror. 
Not to mention if the plane were at cruising altitude in order for it to appear, by perspective, to be at the same height as you ceiling it would be too far away t see it.
Your mirror theory is horribly flawed.
Also we're not seeing the suns reflection, we are seeing the bottom of clouds being illuminated by a source of light. Big difference Tom.
If the clouds were reflecting the sun we would not be shadowed by the horizon. In other words after the sun drops below the horizon but still illuminate the bottoms of the clouds, if the clouds were truly reflect the sun they would shine light back on us, they absolutely do NOT. It's just as dark with or without clouds.

Your train track theory is also flawed.
Turn you train track vertically. Bottom track's the ground, top track the clouds respectfully 2 miles apart. Now ad a 3rd rail to represent the sun at 3,000 miles apart.  Now move the them away until the the two bottom rails by perspective almost come together. This represents the clouds an the ground where you can still see the sun between the two illuminating the clouds even before it drops blow the horizon. Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.     
 
   
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2018, 02:35:43 AM
Quote
Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.

What makes you think that the light is coming from the bottom? The red parts of the clouds in such pictures can see horizontally to their reddish horizon. We have established and agreed that if "9 out of 10 doctors agree" could go up to the altitude of his red clouds, that he would be looking at a red horizon. The light is coming from the horizon.

That's right Tom, the light source  is coming from the horizon which is at a lower altitude than the clouds. Since it travels through the lower most parts of the atmosphere it becomes more red than the lighter colors the higher the sun is in the sky.
Thanks for making the RE case.

The bottom parts sticking out from the underside of the cloud can best see the sun; so it is of no surprise that they should be most lit up.

How can it be shown that the light is "coming from the bottom"?

Some of your comments such as "Not to mention if the plane were at cruising altitude in order for it to appear, by perspective, to be at the same height as you ceiling it would be too far away to see it" seem  misplaced. No one has ever seen a plane out of their window? If you see a plane out your window, then it is seemingly below the ceiling you are standing under. Look at the plane, then look up.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curiosity File on December 12, 2018, 03:34:01 AM
Quote
Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.

What makes you think that the light is coming from the bottom? The red parts of the clouds in such pictures can see horizontally to their reddish horizon. We have established and agreed that if "9 out of 10 doctors agree" could go up to the altitude of his red clouds, that he would be looking at a red horizon. The light is coming from the horizon.

That's right Tom, the light source  is coming from the horizon which is at a lower altitude than the clouds. Since it travels through the lower most parts of the atmosphere it becomes more red than the lighter colors the higher the sun is in the sky.
Thanks for making the RE case.

The bottom parts sticking out from the underside of the cloud can best see the sun; so it is of no surprise that they should be most lit up.

Where has it been shown that the light is "coming from the bottom"?

Per the rest of your comment, I do not see where you have demonstrated anything. Your comments such as "Not to mention if the plane were at cruising altitude in order for it to appear, by perspective, to be at the same height as you ceiling it would be too far away t see it. " are obviously not true. No one has ever seen a plane out of their window?

I think you need to think about all of this a bit more.

You seem confused Tom.
Go back and read my posts thoroughly and then if you still have question about what I said, post the quote in its entirety instead of asking question that have obvious answers like, "No one has ever seen a plane out of their window?"
You know exactly what was said. You know exactly what I explained, and so does everyone else. 
 


   
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: George Jetson on December 12, 2018, 03:55:02 AM

That's right Tom, the light source  is coming from the horizon which is at a lower altitude than the clouds. Since it travels through the lower most parts of the atmosphere it becomes more red than the lighter colors the higher the sun is in the sky.
Thanks for making the RE case.

No, the redness of the sunset is perfectly in line with the perspective theory of sunsets.  At sunset the light from the sun that is visible at an arbitrary point has to pass a greater distance than it does during the day to reach that point as the angle of the sun rays to the observer's eyes reaches its minimum and red has the longest wavelength of colors in the spectrum thus the visible light at sunset/sunrise is red/dark orange. 
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: George Jetson on December 12, 2018, 04:04:07 AM
Turn you train track vertically. Bottom track's the ground, top track the clouds respectfully 2 miles apart. Now ad a 3rd rail to represent the sun at 3,000 miles apart.  Now move the them away until the the two bottom rails by perspective almost come together. This represents the clouds an the ground where you can still see the sun between the two illuminating the clouds even before it drops blow the horizon. Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.     
 
This (above) is a poor and convoluted analogy but I'll play: What would the observer from a given point of the lower train track see of the upper train track?  That depends upon the distance of the given point of the upper train track that he is observing and the height of the upper tracks above the lower tracks.  At a given distance (if both tracks were long enough), an arbitrary portion of the upper track (representing the sun) would appear so low that only observers situated at the bottom end of the lower train tracks would see that portion of the upper tracks (which is analogous to the sun illuminating the lower portion of clouds.)
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 12, 2018, 04:41:52 AM
Quote
...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...

No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."

Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."

Since these are facts that we all agree with, then I don't believe that this is an experiment that needs to be conducted.

What? We don't agree.  Fundamentally, we don't. Perspective doesn't make a light source higher than an object illuminate the bottom of a lower object. Perspective doesn't alter the physical geometry. Perspective is perceptual. You are trying to rationalize a way for perceptual fact to account for a physical impossibility. We can just keep gainsaying each other, or you can demonstrate how you are right. I'd love to see it. 

But no tilting of the mirror. That's not demonstrating how perspective is accomplishing the impossible.

There is no controversy with these assertions. We are putting empirical facts together, not hypothetical facts together. If you do see me claim something hypothetical, let me know.

See above.

If you don't tilt the mirror then you won't see the horizon.

Uh, yeah. You don't see it IN THE MIRROR. That's the point. Perspective does not make the higher sun reflect its light on the bottom of lower clouds. The sun has to be actually lower than the clouds.


If the mirror is perfectly horizontal then you will always only see the ground when you look up at it.

That's the problem, isn't it? That's the flaw in explaining the phenomenon as a consequence of perspective. It doesn't work.

Recall that the analogy this comes from was the light reflecting off of the clouds; which can reflect light like mirrors, but are not mirrors positioned perfectly horizontal.

Whoa there, partner. You were the one who interjected the mirror analogy. Now, you see the problem with that and so you want to try to cheat to position the "mirror" in a way that salvages the analogy but violates the explanatory power of "perspective?"  I've already given you leniency on allowing that perspective is the reason the sun can reach the horizon at all. Perspective can't do that either but I gave you that one. Now, you want to help perspective even more my tilting the mirror?

The clouds can see the horizon, and can receive its reddish light. Higher clouds will be higher in altitude and will be seeing the sun higher above the horizon where the light isn't as reddish. I don't see where the "needing to be perfectly horizontal" piece comes in.

And I don't understand why you don't understand. What part of the clouds are "seeing" the sun light? The bottom of the clouds, right? Now, you're adding the required element that the bottom of the clouds be inclined toward the sun and THAT'S why they're illuminated that way?

So the picture I posted?
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/i1d62r.jpg)
That's happening not because of any perspective rationalization because that cloud ceiling is higher over Ocotillo to the east and then slopes lower as they extend toward the west? If they were horizontal, they wouldn't reflect the sun light, correct? At least not on a flat earth. Is it the tilting and not perspective that explains that phenomenon?

The same reasoning applies if you have a mirror over your head. If it is facing horizontal it will only show the ground. If it is slightly tilted then it will be possible to see a plane in the distance that is much higher in altitude than the mirror. Should that observation be a shock or a mystery? It is none more shocking than seeing a plane apparently below your kitchen ceiling when looking out your kitchen window.

No. That observation wouldn't be a shock. But that's a different explanation from the perspective one you tried to foster here. Requiring that the cloud bottoms be tilted to satisfy the mirror analogy renders perspective void.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2018, 04:53:12 AM
Clouds reflect light like mirrors, but they are not mirrors that are positioned perfectly horizontal.

My original question is that if the clouds were mirrors, would you see the sun at the horizon? More in the sense of, if the clouds were shiny and reflective, like silver popcorn, would you see the bright reflection of the sun? Yes, you would. You would see the sun reflecting off of the clouds.

This is the point. The point is that the clouds are seeing the sun.

If you were to put your head somewhere where the red area is you would see the sun or the red horizon from that vantage point, or the glow through the clouds. If you were to put your head in a dark area, your view of the sun would be blocked by clouds.

That one part of the clouds is illuminated and another is not, does not tell us that the clouds are being lit from the bottom. It tells us that some parts of the clouds can see the sun and not others.

That those areas of the clouds happen to be the lowest parts of the cloud is expected.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 12, 2018, 05:04:29 AM
Clouds are not mirrors that are positioned perfectly horizontal.

My original question is that if the clouds we're mirrors, would you see the sun at the horizon? More in the sense of, if the clouds were shiny and reflective, like silver popcorn, would you see the bright reflection of the sun? Yes, you would. You would see the sun reflecting off of the clouds.

This is the point. The point is that the clouds are seeing the sun.

If you were to put your head somewhere where the red area is you would see the sun or the red horizon from that vantage point, or the glow through the clouds. If you were to put your head in a dark area, your view of the sun would be blocked by clouds.

That one part of the clouds is illuminated and another is not, does not tell us that the clouds are being lit from the bottom. It tells us that some parts of the clouds can see the sun and not others.

That those areas of the clouds happen to be the lowest parts of the cloud is expected.

Clouds that are lit that way on a flat earth then must be tilted toward the sun. That's what you're saying. If they're horizontal, that underlit phenomenon can't happen on a flat earth. Correct?

The answer has to be yes, but I want to see you affirm it.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curiosity File on December 12, 2018, 05:36:59 AM
Turn you train track vertically. Bottom track's the ground, top track the clouds respectfully 2 miles apart. Now ad a 3rd rail to represent the sun at 3,000 miles apart.  Now move the them away until the the two bottom rails by perspective almost come together. This represents the clouds an the ground where you can still see the sun between the two illuminating the clouds even before it drops blow the horizon. Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.     
 
This (above) is a poor and convoluted analogy but I'll play: What would the observer from a given point of the lower train track see of the upper train track?  That depends upon the distance of the given point of the upper train track that he is observing and the height of the upper tracks above the lower tracks.  At a given distance (if both tracks were long enough), an arbitrary portion of the upper track (representing the sun) would appear so low that only observers situated at the bottom end of the lower train tracks would see that portion of the upper tracks (which is analogous to the sun illuminating the lower portion of clouds.)

It was a poor convoluted analogy to start with.
Perception doesn't work that way.
 
 

 
 

 
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: stack on December 12, 2018, 06:22:44 AM
Clouds reflect light like mirrors, but they are not mirrors that are positioned perfectly horizontal.

My original question is that if the clouds were mirrors, would you see the sun at the horizon? More in the sense of, if the clouds were shiny and reflective, like silver popcorn, would you see the bright reflection of the sun? Yes, you would. You would see the sun reflecting off of the clouds.

This is the point. The point is that the clouds are seeing the sun.

If you were to put your head somewhere where the red area is you would see the sun or the red horizon from that vantage point, or the glow through the clouds. If you were to put your head in a dark area, your view of the sun would be blocked by clouds.

That one part of the clouds is illuminated and another is not, does not tell us that the clouds are being lit from the bottom. It tells us that some parts of the clouds can see the sun and not others.

That those areas of the clouds happen to be the lowest parts of the cloud is expected.

Like I said before, it's not a perspective/distance issue. We're talking about straight rays of light coming from a source that is above, by quite a considerable distance, casting it's rays upward to the underside of a lower object. This applies to the underlit clouds and to the example of a lesser peak casting it's shadow upward beyond the summit of Everest.

No matter how far I move the sun away from the object at a constant height over a flat plane, the rays never break horizontal and cast at an upward angle. The only way for this to occur is that the sun is literally, physically lowering down to or rising up from the plane. Perspective does not address this issue. 

(https://i.imgur.com/n4nbfOR.jpg)
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 12, 2018, 07:04:45 AM
Waiting for Tom to affirm, but it sounds like he's not arguing perspective (anymore) but rather that there is a tilt component to the bottom of the clouds responsible for that phenomenon. Because Perspective can't accomplish a physical change to the geometry. As Tom noted, the "mirror" must be tilted.

I wonder how much "tilt" is needed? Depends on the height of the sun, distance to the sun and height of the clouds. Whether the sun is 700 miles high or 3000 miles high makes a pretty big difference. But let's go with 700 since the lower the sun actually is, the better for Tom's explanation; and some FET models do argue for a 700 mile high sun.

If those clouds in my picture were miles high (as local meteorologist claimed) and the distance over the earth (flat or convex) was 6200 miles, then we can work out mathematically how tilted the clouds would have to be for the underside to be exposed to the sun and reflect its light. 

But rather than do the math, let's do it with a practical demo.

Scaled 1 mile = 1 inch...

Sun height over earth = 58 feet
Sun distance = 517 feet
Cloud height = 3 inches


(http://oi65.tinypic.com/wi6f54.jpg)

I'll have my son shine a laser mounted on a tripod from the spot on the hill where the red arrow is pointing, and I'll position a mirror (or just a white foam board) 3" parallel to the ground at the white arrow. Then I'll start tilting the forward edge of the target "cloud" up until the laser is able to shine on the ground-facing side. The resulting angle will be the amount of tilt toward the rising or setting sun that such clouds over a flat earth would need in order to exhibit that under-lighting. Any less than that and the underside would not be lit up.

Any objections?

Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: stack on December 12, 2018, 07:32:28 AM
That seems like an interesting experiment and the parameters seem right. And generous with the 700 mile sun height - Though I suppose you could quadruple+ the tilt calculation to get 3000 miles version?

Ironically, this guy is arguing that non-tilting flat bottom clouds prove a flat earth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10T6QXMnbJM
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on December 12, 2018, 11:43:20 AM
If you agree that the railroad tracks appears to merge a finite distance away, then it must also be possible for the sun to merge a finite distance away.
You know, I pretty much agree with this.
But the silliness is you claiming that you can still see the sun as a disc the same size as it is when it's directly overhead but it's so far away that you can't perceive the THREE THOUSAND MILE gap between the sun and earth.

If your railroad tracks were 3,000 miles apart and 32 miles (roughly the diameter of your sun, yes?) then at the distance where that 3,000 miles becomes imperceptible you really think you could still see the tracks? Now OK, the sun is bright so maybe you could still see it but if the 3,000 miles gap is hard to perceive then the sun would surely just be a speck, not a large disc slowly sinking below the horizon - sinking in exactly the way we perceive things going behind other things. When things disappear "by perspective" in the real world they just get smaller and smaller until you can no longer see them. In your rail tracks example yes, as the tracks go into the distance the gap between them gets smaller but so do the tracks. You want some model of perspective where the gap between the sun and earth, the 3,000 mile gap, get smaller and smaller until you can't see it...but the sun remains the same size throughout. I know you have some magnification of bright lights idea but all your examples show a lot of glare which masks the true size of the lights, we see by filtered pictures of the sun that it remains a constant size. And that means it remains a constant distance.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on December 12, 2018, 11:47:31 AM
Clouds reflect light like mirrors, but they are not mirrors that are positioned perfectly horizontal.
Interesting, because your Wiki says...

Quote
The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat

https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 12, 2018, 03:21:43 PM
I'm just gonna bring this image back again from the last time we discussed this, as it seems pertinent once again.

(As an aside, if there's some BBC or something I can do to make it resizable in line, showing it so I can put it together for the image would be appreciated as I understand it's rather large)
(http://i.imgur.com/tuOB418.jpg)

I see a couple of things here. 1) The clouds in this image are clearly not getting ANY light hitting them from above. 2) The sun has moved to be (at least visually) below the 'horizon' of the clouds, but still casting light up into them from below. We once again have the Everest occurrence.

(https://i.imgur.com/xAIH0jo.png)

We have 3 parallel lines here. Now, I haven't added 'perspective effects' to them, I was hoping Tom might oblige doing that for me as this is something that still doesn't make any sense to me. Our black arrow is our plane and it's black plane above the orange clouds. The blue line is the ocean below the clouds. In the upper right we have the actual position of the sun. The lower right is our reddish/orange sun shining light up into the clouds, seemingly from below their plane. How? What happens to allow the sun to appear, not just below our personal sight plane/horizon, but that of something below *us* as well? If nothing else this sure seems to debunk the idea that the 'horizon rises to eye level' imo, but I don't understand how this can possibly occur on a FE.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: RonJ on December 12, 2018, 04:16:51 PM
From time to time I would see an interesting thing while at sea in the middle of the ocean.  The ship would be under a perfectly clear sky and heading towards a bank of clouds ahead.  Those clouds appeared to extend all the way to the surface of the ocean and you could see the tops of the clouds above that.  For sure you would assume that the ship was heading into some fog and we would have to be ready to operate in reduced visibility in a couple of hours.  Then as we progressed closer to the clouds, slowly the bottoms of the clouds would start to appear to rise above the level of the sea.  After a while we would actually pass under the clouds with about a 500 foot to 1000 foot ceiling.  This phenomenon wasn't all that unusual and would usually appear as we approached a weather front while at sea.  It illustrated the sunken ship effect only using clouds above the sea.  Perspective isn't an issue here because you would start by seeing the actual tops of the clouds at a far distance then slowly the side and then the bottoms would appear.  Finally the bottoms would appear to rise from the sea and then eventually the ship would pass under the clouds.  Only with a global earth would you expect to see something like this.   
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: George Jetson on December 12, 2018, 05:54:57 PM
From time to time I would see an interesting thing while at sea in the middle of the ocean.  The ship would be under a perfectly clear sky and heading towards a bank of clouds ahead.  Those clouds appeared to extend all the way to the surface of the ocean and you could see the tops of the clouds above that.  For sure you would assume that the ship was heading into some fog and we would have to be ready to operate in reduced visibility in a couple of hours.  Then as we progressed closer to the clouds, slowly the bottoms of the clouds would start to appear to rise above the level of the sea.  After a while we would actually pass under the clouds with about a 500 foot to 1000 foot ceiling.  This phenomenon wasn't all that unusual and would usually appear as we approached a weather front while at sea.  It illustrated the sunken ship effect only using clouds above the sea.  Perspective isn't an issue here because you would start by seeing the actual tops of the clouds at a far distance then slowly the side and then the bottoms would appear.  Finally the bottoms would appear to rise from the sea and then eventually the ship would pass under the clouds.  Only with a global earth would you expect to see something like this.
Maybe I'm not grasping fully what you're trying to say but it doesn't sound like anything that couldn't be explained by perspective.  Do you have any video or photographic evidence of what it is you claimed to see?  On a flat earth clouds the bottoms of the clouds would appear to rise as you got closer to them due to perspective just the same as on a globe earth.

Does this picture illustrate what you saw when you said "The ship would be under a perfectly clear sky and heading towards a bank of clouds ahead.  Those clouds appeared to extend all the way to the surface of the ocean and you could see the tops of the clouds above that.?"

(https://st3.depositphotos.com/7782734/15014/i/1600/depositphotos_150142072-stock-photo-sunlight-cascades-through-a-bank.jpg)
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: RonJ on December 12, 2018, 06:24:42 PM
Any photos or videos that I might have would just be claimed to be be altered so there's no point to showing them.  No one on here as ever written down acceptable photo or video authentication standards that everyone could accept.  It would just take one person to say 'fake' and then everyone would believe it.   

I tried to explain that perspective wasn't a factor in my observations.  We had a very good telescope on the bridge of the ship and we could only see the TOPS of the clouds at first.  As the ship progressed we could start to see more & more of the clouds until a small gap started to appear between the sea and the bottoms of the clouds.  What I was seeing couldn't be explained with the flat earth paradigm, but only with a globe earth one.   

What I saw was just a kind of a reversal of the 'sunken ship' effect that is so often 'debunked' on this site and I didn't really expect too many to believe me anyway. 
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: RonJ on December 12, 2018, 06:39:24 PM
Your picture appears to show land ahead not just clouds.  The sun directly ahead makes it difficult to discern exactly.  What I've seen was in the afternoon with the sun behind and clearly lighting the tops of the clouds.  Even with a telescope you could see clouds all the way to the sea until we got closer.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: George Jetson on December 12, 2018, 06:42:49 PM
Any photos or videos that I might have would just be claimed to be be altered so there's no point to showing them.  No one on here as ever written down acceptable photo or video authentication standards that everyone could accept.  It would just take one person to say 'fake' and then everyone would believe it.   
Whether or not the photo is genuine isn't really even relevant, I just would like to visualize what it is you're claiming.

Quote
I tried to explain that perspective wasn't a factor in my observations.  We had a very good telescope on the bridge of the ship and we could only see the TOPS of the clouds at first.  As the ship progressed we could start to see more & more of the clouds until a small gap started to appear between the sea and the bottoms of the clouds.  What I was seeing couldn't be explained with the flat earth paradigm, but only with a globe earth one.   

What I saw was just a kind of a reversal of the 'sunken ship' effect that is so often 'debunked' on this site and I didn't really expect too many to believe me anyway.
You might have tried to explain why perspective couldn't explain it but you didn't succeed.  When you make this kind of "slam-dunk FE debunked!" claim you should probably put more effort into explaining and illustrating the phenomena.
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curiosity File on December 12, 2018, 06:46:58 PM
I'm just gonna bring this image back again from the last time we discussed this, as it seems pertinent once again.

(As an aside, if there's some BBC or something I can do to make it resizable in line, showing it so I can put it together for the image would be appreciated as I understand it's rather large)
(http://i.imgur.com/tuOB418.jpg)

I see a couple of things here. 1) The clouds in this image are clearly not getting ANY light hitting them from above. 2) The sun has moved to be (at least visually) below the 'horizon' of the clouds, but still casting light up into them from below. We once again have the Everest occurrence.

(https://i.imgur.com/xAIH0jo.png)

We have 3 parallel lines here. Now, I haven't added 'perspective effects' to them, I was hoping Tom might oblige doing that for me as this is something that still doesn't make any sense to me. Our black arrow is our plane and it's black plane above the orange clouds. The blue line is the ocean below the clouds. In the upper right we have the actual position of the sun. The lower right is our reddish/orange sun shining light up into the clouds, seemingly from below their plane. How? What happens to allow the sun to appear, not just below our personal sight plane/horizon, but that of something below *us* as well? If nothing else this sure seems to debunk the idea that the 'horizon rises to eye level' imo, but I don't understand how this can possibly occur on a FE.

I mentioned in my earlier posts that I have witnessed this exact effect minus the lava effect. Awesome pic.
I, on rare occasion, see a double layer cloud system where one layer is higher than the mountains and the other below the elevation where I start my descent.
Also well before sun set so there is no perspective of shrinking effect.
Very simply, I see the sun between the two layers of clouds lighting up the bottom of the top layer and the top of the bottom layer.
The sun drops below the top layer before I descend down through them.
The descent is rapid from near (4,000 feet to 125 elevation) in 7 miles.
When I get below the clouds I pick up sight of the sun again and it's illuminating the bottoms of those clouds.
Here's the kicker.
there's another ridge to the east of the (125 foot above sea level) valley that is much lower in elevation,(maybe 1,500 feet), than the mountains to the west where I just came from. As I descend bellow the elevation of the ride to the east I can no longer see the sun but still see the bottom of the clouds lite up.
I also watch the shadow from the ridge to the east climb up the mountain to the west as the sun sets.
(The distance between the ridge to the east and mountain to to the west is about 10 miles.) Absolutely NO perspective of shrinking effect tacking place during my observations.

Elevarions
Peak to the west 4,000 feet
------------ east  1,500 ----
Distance between 10 miles
Valley between peaks 125 feet
Cloud layers estimate altitude
top layer between 6,000 & 10,000
Bottom layer 3,000 to 3,500
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: RonJ on December 12, 2018, 07:06:08 PM
I can't ever post a photo on this site because I have no 'generally acceptable' authentication standards that would show that the photo wasn't altered.  Anything that I could show otherwise would just 'with a wave of the hand' be claimed to have been photo shopped.

Imagine yourself in the middle of the ocean on a globe earth.  There's a known frontal system ahead of you with the sun at your back.  You clearly see just the tops of Cumulonimbus clouds lit up by the sun appearing ahead on the horizon.  Slowly the clouds build higher & higher until you just start to see the tiniest of a gap between the bottoms of the clouds and the sea ahead. Then the ship progresses under the clouds and into a cloudy evening ahead. 

I've also seen a variation of that very same thing with Mt Fuji slowly rising from the sea, also with clouds around it as we approached Japan.  In this case the mountain was at a known distance because our position was known.  Perspective is no argument here because that argument presumes that you will see a wider object before you see a narrower one.  Since I could only see the tip of Mt Fuji first and not the wider part below at the same time, it proves that the wider part was invisible because it was hidden by the curvature of the earth.  If you did a little charting the view was pretty much what you would expect on a globe earth.  That's very hard to refute with the perspective argument.

You couldn't see any land around the mountain until we got a whole lot closer and finally approached & entered the port to discharge our cargo.


Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Curiosity File on December 12, 2018, 07:11:21 PM
Your picture appears to show land ahead not just clouds.  The sun directly ahead makes it difficult to discern exactly.  What I've seen was in the afternoon with the sun behind and clearly lighting the tops of the clouds.  Even with a telescope you could see clouds all the way to the sea until we got closer.
Using a telescope is cheating. It blows the "perception effect" out of the water, pun intended.
Out of curiosity could you give an estimate of distance it takes for the clouds to meat the ocean?
If someone did the math I'm positive it would show that the distance it would take the clouds to meat the ocean on a FE by perspective would be much greater than that of what we observe in the real world. 
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: RonJ on December 12, 2018, 07:27:56 PM
It's hard to say the distance exactly to a bank of clouds that's part of a moving weather front, but I would say about 50 nautical miles.  Typically we would be doing about 24 knots and would take about 2 hours to start going under any clouds.  Since this thread is about clouds at sunrise I hate to say anything about mountains or buildings at a known distances that were seen on a regular basis.  I've done that in past posts that confirms a globe earth.

I'm an engineer by training and experience. Showing something using math wouldn't be a problem.  It's difficult to prove much of anything by just observing clouds.  Just about any observation could easily have an explanation for either FE or RE.  Any picture that seemed to show a really definitive answer would just be called a 'fake'.  I'm still a licensed commercial pilot and have been flying above a bank of clouds and have seen the sun set and go below those clouds.  Again the argument would be perspective.  There are ways around the argument but would be a logistical problem.  Any pictures taken of cloud tops from two different points would just be deemed photo shopped as there's zero authentication standards on this website.   
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 12, 2018, 09:37:25 PM
You might have tried to explain why perspective couldn't explain it but you didn't succeed. 

May I try?

1. Let this represent a cloud bank. The upper half (red with yellow squares) is cloud. The lower half (yellow with red squares) is the "gap" below the clouds. The gap is 500' from surface to ceiling. The clouds are an additional 500' above the gap. Together, they are 1000'.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OxJR9MT_qm4/XBFhMfgDIOI/AAAAAAAAAFs/dJfWCsT0ULsRRHnPQ4_zkQWCd05eNzfXACLcBGAs/s1600/Clouds%2B1.jpg)

2. Here is a view of that cloud+gap from a height of 100 feet (bridge of a ship) at a distance of 100 miles through a 50mm focal length lens. On the left is a flat earth view. On the right is a globe earth view. On a flat earth, we can't resolve the cloud from the gap but we can see something. On a globe earth, we see nothing yet. But this isn't about whether or not something can be seen. This is about perspective. As far as perspective is concerned, 500 feet of cloud (or 500 feet of clearance below the cloud) subtends about 0.054 of a degree or just over 3 arcminutes.  A good eye should be able to resolve an angular gap of 3 arcminutes below the cloud but this display/model isn't able to.  Still, lets pretend that we're approximating the limits of eye resolution since that is a companion piece of the perspective argument for a flat earth:
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-P8aL9o1rLA0/XBFnjlzhkoI/AAAAAAAAAGc/WeyrOa6fU8wsywurZizzzADy4Be7lgHLwCLcBGAs/s1600/Clouds%2B3.jpg)

3. Let's try to overcome the resolution limits of the shorter focal length by zooming in. This is a common flat earth argument for showing how "zooming" in can restore something to view. At 200mm "zoom" in the flat scenario we can now barely make out the lower 500' yellow segment representing the gap. Did zooming make the cloud bank appear to "rise up?" Or did it just help resolve the upper 500' from the lower 500'?

Zooming didn't work on the globe side. The entire 1000' of cloud+gap is still not visible. On the flat side, zooming didn't increase resolution of the upper 3 arcminutes of clouds more than the lower 3 arcminutes of gap. Both are still 3 arcminutes. Zooming just helped us to begin to distinguish the two from each other. In other words, the clouds didn't come into view before the gap did. They diverged from the same 6 minutes of arc into two 3 minutes of arc of distinguishable characteristics.  Zooming didn't change perspective. Perspective remained the same.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-19LiYNeQqOI/XBFq2JyyErI/AAAAAAAAAG0/Gw4qmixqDLMD6vlC26iVE0Xs833VQ8BgACLcBGAs/s1600/Clouds%2B4.jpg)

4. Let's leave the focal length alone now and begin reducing distance. Here is the 200mm view from 75 miles (always keeping our observation height at 100 feet). The globe view still can't see the clouds, but now the flat earth can clearly distinguish cloud from gap. Both are 500' in height and they have increased in vertical angular height at the same rate. At 75 miles, 500' now subtends 4 minutes of arc. That's perspective at work. The spatial dimension of angular height is inversely proportional to the distance. As distance decreases the apparent height (angular height) increases. But perspective isn't making the clouds "grow" more rapidly than the gap. 500' of gap isn't resolving more slowly than 500' of cloud. Perspective is operating on both at the same rate.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HqxAapvHzEc/XBFtFvF3DyI/AAAAAAAAAHM/WMgvJias3dUTNA7hr0zcMYkqeaGJmSh_ACLcBGAs/s1600/Clouds%2B5.jpg)

5. At 50 miles, the clouds have finally come into view on a globe earth. Are we seeing only the tops of the clouds or, like previously in the flat earth scenario, is the 500' of clouds merely unresolved from the lower 500' of gap? It must be the former, right? Because we're zoomed in to 200mm, so 500' should subtend the same degree of arc as in the clearly resolved flat earth scenario. At 50 miles, 500' now accounts for 6.4 arcminutes. That's true whether we're on a flat earth or a globe. It's a function of distance, not surface topology. So on a globe, we MUST only be seeing the top of the 500' clouds. The lower 500' gap is still hidden from view.

But this didn't happen as the cloud + gap came into view on a flat earth. Perspective increased the size of the clouds and the gap at the same time. Zoom helped us resolve the difference earlier than in the globe scenario, but it didn't bring the clouds into view before the gap. Neither did perspective. Already, we can see something different is happening on a globe than on a flat earth in the way this cloud bank is coming into view.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dUlPo3woYtI/XBFvfNYvczI/AAAAAAAAAHk/GOoJ5ND4UXY-ula7FQv_TcTj2KDQewasQCLcBGAs/s1600/Clouds%2B6.jpg)

6. This is a 40 mile view. On the flat earth, the cloud bank and the gap beneath it both just keeps getting bigger. That's how perspective works. The angle subtended by a 500' vertical height is now over 8 arcminutes. But even so, on a globe at that distance, though the full 500' (8+ arcminutes of cloud) is visible, only a tiny sliver of the gap below the clouds is seen. Maybe about 20% (100 of the 500 feet of gap). If perspective was responsible for this disparate revelation of gap compared to cloud, then we should have seen the clouds resolve earlier than the gap in the flat earth scenario. But they didn't. They resolved together, equally, as you would expect with perspective. But something else other than perspective (or resolution) must be responsible for the differences in revealing of the gap below the clouds.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-piwBCQElXHo/XBFzLv_ECgI/AAAAAAAAAH8/R9DRC-Cpu5Air0Zb9sgVEQRAsEpBOzlDACLcBGAs/s1600/Clouds%2B7.jpg)

7. At 30 miles, we clearly see that there is a gap under the clouds, but it's still narrower than the band of clouds above. But we know that we set the model up so that they were the same vertical height of 500', which at this distance makes up almost 11 arcminutes. We see the full 11 arcminutes of cloud in both the globe and flat scenario. But we only see about 7.5 arcminutes of gap in the globe scenario. That's 3.5 minutes of arc difference between the cloud band and the gap band. (Gap Band.  Ha!)

That delta never happens in the flat scenario. Perspective doesn't cause that. The remaining increase in angular visibility is what is causing the upper cloud segment to appear to rise; something with doesn't happen in a flat scenario and for which Perspective is not responsible.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KufnDm3NEUA/XBFz1T4MsaI/AAAAAAAAAIE/HM3l7NbMVnEjpSf7SDqk7DuKt2yea-9IgCLcBGAs/s1600/Clouds%2B8.jpg)

8. Finally, we'll jump ahead and stop at a distance of about 14 miles. At this range, 500' takes up over 23 arcminutes and the full span of the gap below the clouds is fully visible on a globe.  Perspective can now 'expand' the gap area inversely to the distance just as it's been doing on the flat earth side since the start.

What what Perspective is incapable of doing is making the gap come into view and increase in size more slowly or after the upper clouds.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-veAE1uK0psk/XBF2B2vAwNI/AAAAAAAAAIc/x4VKIu1ryXwbhGe0ExYauA2WyAml5lu2gCLcBGAs/s1600/Clouds%2B9.jpg)


Note, too, that a distinguishing feature between flat and convex surface models is the "dip" in the objective from eye level.

In Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe, he adds an extra feature to "help" perspective explain this phenomenon. He says surface irregularities, such as waves, at the horizon account for the difference between how higher and lower objects are revealed. The model above didn't account for surface irregularities. The surface was smooth.

But you can't have your perspective cake and forget about it too. Perspective works on the waves as well, causing them to diminish in angular height with distance. To account for the disparity between revealing of upper clouds and lower gap, they'd have to be closer to the observer by inverse relationship to the size required to account for the amount of obscuring they would cause. Not only that, but they'd have to be ever-present, yet the "sinking ship" phenomenon happens regardless of sea state or surface smoothness.

Another oft-claimed addition to the flat earth scenario is the atmo(layer) effects at low grazing angles. The atmo- is dense, and looking horizontally across a distance near-parallel to the surface is to look through ever denser amounts of particulates, moisture and other obscuring, light-extinction factors. We encounter haze, mirage, shimmering, diffusion...aspects which make distinguishing things more difficult. This is most pronounced close to the surface (usually). So "convergence zone" -- that band of air closest to the surface of earth -- becomes another possible explanation for why lower elements of an object or lower objects are lost to sight before higher ones. And that is true...sometimes. Not always. Like waves, atmospheric/atmolayer surface conditions can mask things from sight that just getting a little steeper angle or elevation can restore to sight.

But if that's a required component, then it needs to be consistent. The atmo- is anything but consistent. It's in constant flux. Yet even under perfectly clear and stable air conditions, the above phenomenon is observed. 

So that's why citing perspective as the reason for "sinking ship effect" is grossly flawed. Perspective doesn't work in that way. And trying to apply ad hoc rationalizations (waves, eye resolution, convergence zone) to salvage it only reveals its flaws.

But a curving surface does work as an explanation. (So does light curving in the opposite direction away from a flat earth surface, which is why I remained intrigued by Electromagnetic Accelerator in a flat earth model while disparaging Perspective as an explanation for the "sinking ship" phenomenon.)
Title: Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
Post by: RonJ on December 12, 2018, 09:58:15 PM
Thank you, Bobby, for your excellent explanation for what it's like to see a bank of clouds appear on the horizon at sea. 

Of course the other thing that debunks perspective would be observing a mountain rising out of the sea.  A mountain gets wider as you go below the peak.  Therefore with perspective you could expect to see the wider, lower, portions first before seeing the peak.  The lower portions are even a bit closer as well.  Now imagine Mt. Fuji in Japan appearing out of the sea as we start nearing our port.  First you see the peak, then you start to see the clouds that often are around the mountain, then you slowly start to see the rest of the mountain rise out of the sea.  It's a very impressive sight.  You can be sure that a bunch of us were taking a good look at Mt. Fuji thru our telescope as well.  It meant shore time was getting close.