The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: 3DGeek on September 09, 2017, 02:46:37 PM

Title: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 09, 2017, 02:46:37 PM
Here in Texas, the after-effects of Hurricane Harvey have produced some truly spectacular cloud formations - and some of the most gorgeous sunsets I've seen in a long time.

Here is a 180 degree panoramic photo taken from my balcony last night (Sept 9th 2017):

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PANO_Sunset.jpg)

And here is a single-shot photo with the camera pointed off to the West just a few seconds earlier:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Sunset.jpg)

My house is oriented North/South and the balcony looks out to the West.  Because we're close to the equinox (Sept 22nd), the sun is setting almost exactly to the west - right in the middle of both photos.   When I took these pictures, the sun had clearly just set...and it had disappeared below the rooftops of those houses that you can see on the skyline.

Now...according to the "altered perspective" thing that Tom keeps insisting on (and which is mentioned in about a dozen places on the Wiki) - the reason that the sun isn't 30 degrees above the horizon (as we'd expect since it's 6,000 miles away horizontally and 3,000 miles up) is because of some weird perspective thing...and the reason we can't still see it anymore is because we're no longer inside the cone of light that it projects downwards.

This is so poorly explained that it defies logic...but that's typical of all FE theory.

But here's the thing.  The undersides of those clouds are CLEARLY being lit from somewhere.   Sunlight from the setting sun is lighting the clouds from below...not above as you'd expect if the sun was "really" 30 degrees above the horizon and projecting a downwards cone of light...which we're clearly on the darkening edge of.

This effect is easily explained in RET because the sun really is "below the horizon" - so for a short period after sunset, the suns rays are shining upwards and lighting the undersides of the clouds.

I live in a "dark skies" neighborhood where outdoor lighting has to be kept to a minimum and directed downwards as a requirement of the building codes - so this can't be lighting from buildings or street lights because we have neither.

So how is this explained by the "altered perspective" theory?

Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: mtnman on September 11, 2017, 03:35:55 AM
Great example photos. Can't wait to hear an FE explanation  :)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 11, 2017, 01:03:56 PM
Great example photos. Can't wait to hear an FE explanation  :)
I'm assuming it'll be biodegradable luminous pink dye sprayed out of NASA aircraft to help with the coverup.  :-)

Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: mtnman on September 11, 2017, 01:28:36 PM
I'm assuming it'll be biodegradable luminous pink dye sprayed out of NASA aircraft to help with the coverup.  :-)
LOL  :)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 11, 2017, 03:18:58 PM
Here's another (imo very pretty) example of this, this time from above the clouds. (http://i.imgur.com/tuOB418.jpg)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 11, 2017, 03:42:34 PM
Here's another (imo very pretty) example of this, this time from above the clouds.

Wow!  That's an astoundingly cool photo.  Really makes it undeniable that the clouds are being lit from below.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: DuniyaGolHai on September 14, 2017, 10:16:28 AM
Great example photos. Can't wait to hear an FE explanation  :)
I'm assuming it'll be biodegradable luminous pink dye sprayed out of NASA aircraft to help with the coverup.  :-)

 :D :D
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2017, 01:04:00 PM
Here's another (imo very pretty) example of this, this time from above the clouds. (http://i.imgur.com/tuOB418.jpg)

Higher clouds see the sun at a different angle in the sky than lower clouds do.

When the sun shines at them from a horizontal angle they change color. The higher clouds will eventually change color too as the sun sets.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 14, 2017, 01:13:03 PM
Here's another (imo very pretty) example of this, this time from above the clouds. (http://i.imgur.com/tuOB418.jpg)

Higher clouds see the sun at a different angle in the sky than lower clouds do.

When the sun shines at them from a horizontal angle they change color. The higher clouds will eventually change color too as the sun sets.
With a 3000 mile high sun, no. No they don't. The color is completely irrelevant anyway. The light is hitting the clouds from underneath. You can clearly see that upon clouds in various positions to the left and right of the image where the underside is lit up, but the top is still dark. This is visible up towards the top of the image as well. How does this happen on a FE? You have to have bendy light on a FE, or this can't happen.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2017, 01:18:10 PM
With a 3000 mile high sun, no. No they don't. The color is completely irrelevant anyway. The light is hitting the clouds from underneath. You can clearly see that upon clouds in various positions to the left and right of the image where the underside is lit up, but the top is still dark. This is visible up towards the top of the image as well. How does this happen on a FE? You have to have bendy light on a FE, or this can't happen.

The sun is in a higher position in the sky when you are at a higher altitude vs when you are at a lower altitude. It is for this reason that you can rise the sun up from the horizon just after sunset by rapidly increasing your altitude.

An object at a higher altitude will be lit at a different angle than a lower altitude. Therefore, if the rays are hitting lower clouds differently than higher clouds they will be lit differently.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Rama Set on September 14, 2017, 01:19:15 PM
Never from below though Tom. You are intentionally ignoring that inevitable conclusion. Clouds are never at the altitude FET needs the sun to be at. They are always lower, yet we see them lit from below only at tims when the sun is setting. To be expected with a spheroid Earth rotating on it's axis. Impossible under your conception of the world.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 14, 2017, 01:20:03 PM
Tom,

In order for the clouds to be lit from underneath, the sun has to be a lower altitude than the clouds.

The highest cloud altitudes are around 45,000 feet, less than 10 miles.

Please demonstrate how it is at all possible that a light source that is 3000 miles above a flat earth can light clouds that are 10 miles above it from underneath.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2017, 01:21:26 PM
Tom,

In order for the clouds to be lit from underneath, the sun has to be a lower altitude than the clouds.

The highest cloud altitudes are around 45,000 feet, less than 10 miles.

Please demonstrate how it is at all possible that a light source that is 3000 miles above a flat earth can light clouds that are 10 miles above it from underneath.

Where has it been shown that the clouds are being lit from underneath? I say that they are being lit from the side at those low altitudes and that is what causes the color change.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 14, 2017, 01:25:35 PM
Tom,

In order for the clouds to be lit from underneath, the sun has to be a lower altitude than the clouds.

The highest cloud altitudes are around 45,000 feet, less than 10 miles.

Please demonstrate how it is at all possible that a light source that is 3000 miles above a flat earth can light clouds that are 10 miles above it from underneath.

Where has it been shown that the clouds are being lit from underneath? I say that they are being lit from the side at those low altitudes and that is what causes the color change.

Then demonstrate how it is possible for them to be lit from the side, when the sun is at 3000 miles and the clouds at most 10 miles.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 14, 2017, 01:29:01 PM
Tom,

In order for the clouds to be lit from underneath, the sun has to be a lower altitude than the clouds.

The highest cloud altitudes are around 45,000 feet, less than 10 miles.

Please demonstrate how it is at all possible that a light source that is 3000 miles above a flat earth can light clouds that are 10 miles above it from underneath.

Where has it been shown that the clouds are being lit from underneath? I say that they are being lit from the side at those low altitudes and that is what causes the color change.
Are you just blind? The color change isn't even in discussion here. It's the fact the light of the sun is only showing up on the undersides of the clouds. The tops are completely unlit, and if it was just the sides of the clouds being lit, the vast majority of them in the picture I posted would have no sun shining upon them? Look at the picture Tom. Look at how the clouds are being lit on their bottoms. Not their tops, not their sides. Their bottoms. This cannot happen on a FE, because the sun is never below them. This is disregarding the hogwash about 'the clouds have a different angle on the sun' that is completely irrelevant when we're talking a 3000 mile high sun as compared to moving less than 5 miles into the sky. But sure, tell us how 'perspective' works in that regard, hmm? Because your perspective appears to simply be filler so you can say lines of sight exactly mimic what we would see on a RE. So convenient.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2017, 01:35:54 PM
Then demonstrate how it is possible for them to be lit from the side, when the sun is at 3000 miles and the clouds at most 10 miles.

It would be for the same reason why a receding airplane can descend into the horizon, despite being 5,000 feet in the air at all times.

Tom,

In order for the clouds to be lit from underneath, the sun has to be a lower altitude than the clouds.

The highest cloud altitudes are around 45,000 feet, less than 10 miles.

Please demonstrate how it is at all possible that a light source that is 3000 miles above a flat earth can light clouds that are 10 miles above it from underneath.

Where has it been shown that the clouds are being lit from underneath? I say that they are being lit from the side at those low altitudes and that is what causes the color change.
Are you just blind? The color change isn't even in discussion here. It's the fact the light of the sun is only showing up on the undersides of the clouds. The tops are completely unlit, and if it was just the sides of the clouds being lit, the vast majority of them in the picture I posted would have no sun shining upon them? Look at the picture Tom. Look at how the clouds are being lit on their bottoms. Not their tops, not their sides. Their bottoms. This cannot happen on a FE, because the sun is never below them. This is disregarding the hogwash about 'the clouds have a different angle on the sun' that is completely irrelevant when we're talking a 3000 mile high sun as compared to moving less than 5 miles into the sky. But sure, tell us how 'perspective' works in that regard, hmm? Because your perspective appears to simply be filler so you can say lines of sight exactly mimic what we would see on a RE. So convenient.

I don't know what you are talking about. It appears as if the higher grey clouds are being lit from above somewhere. If all of the light were coming from the bottom the top of those clouds should be dark. However, they are not dark.

This is a proof against your idea that all of the light is shining upwards from the bottom.

It cannot be argued that the top grey clouds are illuminated by the sky, either, since we see that there are areas of darkness and shadow in those top grey clouds; they are not universally lit by sky reflection.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 14, 2017, 01:37:03 PM
The sun is in a higher position in the sky when you are at a higher altitude vs when you are at a lower altitude. It is for this reason that you can rise the sun up from the horizon just after sunset by rapidly increasing your altitude.

Very good Tom!  That is correct.

Quote
An object at a higher altitude will be lit at a different angle than a lower altitude. Therefore, if the rays are hitting lower clouds differently than higher clouds they will be lit differently.

Oh...but Tom...didn't I just hear you say:  "The sun is in a higher position in the sky when you are at a higher altitude"...I am quoting you correctly on that?

So if the clouds are at a HIGHER altitude than me (which they undoubtedly are if the Earth is Flat) - then the sun will be "in a higher position in the sky" (your words) from the point of view of the clouds.

So if it's at a HIGHER position in the sky  - how come it's lighting the clouds from below...which would be a considerably LOWER position?

The other problem you have here is that your statement above is not consistent with your bogus "altered perspective" claim.

In your previous claim, the sun (which is 3,000 miles up and 6,000 miles away at sunset) is truthfully around 30 degrees above the horizon.   You claimed that the reason sunsets happen is some handwavy thing about perspective and the weakness of human vision or some such - OK, let's assume your right for one moment.

But you also say that light travels in straight lines.  So if the sun is REALLY 30 degrees above the horizon, then how the heck does the light from it illuminate the undersides of the clouds when it's REALLY obvious that it should be shining down ON TOP of the clouds.

I'd be very grateful if you could explain this inconsistency rather than just dropping off of this thread.

Many thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 14, 2017, 01:40:05 PM
Then demonstrate how it is possible for them to be lit from the side, when the sun is at 3000 miles and the clouds at most 10 miles.

It would be for the same reason why a receding airplane can descend into the horizon, despite being 5,000 feet in the air at all times.

Would you care to elaborate on what that reason is, if not that the earth is a sphere?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 14, 2017, 01:50:05 PM
Tom, if a plane maintains 5K feet above ground level, it will follow the curve of the Earth and appear to descend with distance. Thank you for showing RET is fact. It would not explain how a Sun, 3000 miles away would illuminate clouds that are 10 miles about the Earth from the bottom. (more than the sides are illuminated)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 14, 2017, 01:53:48 PM
Where has it been shown that the clouds are being lit from underneath? I say that they are being lit from the side at those low altitudes and that is what causes the color change.

Sorry - the ORANGE sunlight (yes, I think we can agree that the sun appears to be ORANGE at sunset) is clearly on the underside of the clouds.   That's clear in my photos and in the one taken from an airplane.

We know the sun is orange right at the point of sunset - presumably FET has some explanation for that...probably the same one as in RET - that the sunlight is passing through more air at that angle and more of the shorter wavelength light is being scattered away.

The color matters because the sun is orange and the UNDERSIDE of the clouds is orange.

Quote
I don't know what you are talking about. It appears as if the higher grey clouds are being lit from above somewhere. If all of the light were coming from the bottom the top of those clouds should be dark. However, they are not dark.

As I'm sure you're aware, there is light coming from the sky as well as from the sun.  The sky is still blue - and that provides sufficient "skylight" to dimly illuminate the cloud tops...which appear as a slightly blueish grey.

But it's absolutely obvious that the SUN illumination is orange and only the BOTTOMS of the clouds are orange.

Quote
This is a proof against your idea that all of the light is shining upwards from the bottom.

It is indeed proof that *ALL* of the light isn't shining from the bottom - there is a small amount of skylight making the tops grey.  But it is NOT proof that any ORANGE sunlight is shining on the tops of the clouds.  There is no sign of any orange light from the sky shining onto the tops of the clouds as FET would predict.

Quote
It cannot be argued that the top grey clouds are illuminated by the sky, either, since we see that there are areas of darkness and shadow in those top grey clouds; they are not universally lit by sky reflection.

My, you are getting desperate aren't you!   It most certainly CAN be argued that way.

When you next see the sun set.  Look carefully at the color of the sky across the entire 360 degrees.   You'll see that very close to where the sun is setting, it's orange.   Further away and higher up, it shades through blue and ultimately towards black on the horizon furthest from the sun.

This means that the light from the sky isn't uniform - as it (kinda) is in full daylight.   It's a directional light source.

What that means is that the sides of the clouds nearest to the sunset are being lit by the bluer colors of the sky light - and the sides furthest from the sunset are darker.  That's most obvious in the airplane photograph.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 14, 2017, 01:58:29 PM
@Stinky and @xenotolerance

Could I please just request that you don't derail the conversation into why airplanes disappear over the horizon.

This allows Tom to duck out of the interesting corner we have him boxed into right now and invites him to start talking about things like airplanes over the horizon which is a topic he feels more able to answer.   His answer (I can pretty much guarantee) will be some variation on "alternate perspective"...yeah, I know that's crap - but if you want to debate that, please join the thread about perspective.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 14, 2017, 02:14:02 PM
Where has it been shown that the clouds are being lit from underneath? I say that they are being lit from the side at those low altitudes and that is what causes the color change.

Sorry - the ORANGE sunlight (yes, I think we can agree that the sun appears to be ORANGE at sunset) is clearly on the underside of the clouds.   That's clear in my photos and in the one taken from an airplane.

We know the sun is orange right at the point of sunset - presumably FET has some explanation for that...probably the same one as in RET - that the sunlight is passing through more air at that angle and more of the shorter wavelength light is being scattered away.

The color matters because the sun is orange and the UNDERSIDE of the clouds is orange.

Quote
I don't know what you are talking about. It appears as if the higher grey clouds are being lit from above somewhere. If all of the light were coming from the bottom the top of those clouds should be dark. However, they are not dark.

As I'm sure you're aware, there is light coming from the sky as well as from the sun.  The sky is still blue - and that provides sufficient "skylight" to dimly illuminate the cloud tops...which appear as a slightly blueish grey.

But it's absolutely obvious that the SUN illumination is orange and only the BOTTOMS of the clouds are orange.

Quote
This is a proof against your idea that all of the light is shining upwards from the bottom.

It is indeed proof that *ALL* of the light isn't shining from the bottom - there is a small amount of skylight making the tops grey.  But it is NOT proof that any ORANGE sunlight is shining on the tops of the clouds.  There is no sign of any orange light from the sky shining onto the tops of the clouds as FET would predict.

Quote
It cannot be argued that the top grey clouds are illuminated by the sky, either, since we see that there are areas of darkness and shadow in those top grey clouds; they are not universally lit by sky reflection.

My, you are getting desperate aren't you!   It most certainly CAN be argued that way.

When you next see the sun set.  Look carefully at the color of the sky across the entire 360 degrees.   You'll see that very close to where the sun is setting, it's orange.   Further away and higher up, it shades through blue and ultimately towards black on the horizon furthest from the sun.

This means that the light from the sky isn't uniform - as it (kinda) is in full daylight.   It's a directional light source.

What that means is that the sides of the clouds nearest to the sunset are being lit by the bluer colors of the sky light - and the sides furthest from the sunset are darker.  That's most obvious in the airplane photograph.

As an add to the last bit here, do you notice how the dark parts are where the clouds are curving away from being 'pointing' at the sky? How it's the *sides* of the clouds that are in darkness? Just like how it would be in the two sources of light were above them and below them? As well since you keep mentioning this, these clouds would all appear to be at the same height. There are no 'grey clouds' to go along with 'orange clouds' there are clouds lit by the sun in orange on the bottom, and lit from above by the sky that are gray. Then we have the sides that aren't being well lit by either that are much darker. As well as I believe the nearest bit that's very dark on the right is actually a hole looking at the ocean. Hence why it's so dark despite appearing like it should be 'on top' and thus gray.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 14, 2017, 02:54:53 PM
@Stinky and @xenotolerance

Could I please just request that you don't derail the conversation into why airplanes disappear over the horizon.

This allows Tom to duck out of the interesting corner we have him boxed into right now and invites him to start talking about things like airplanes over the horizon which is a topic he feels more able to answer.   His answer (I can pretty much guarantee) will be some variation on "alternate perspective"...yeah, I know that's crap - but if you want to debate that, please join the thread about perspective.

Thanks!

Sorry, sure thing.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2017, 08:43:10 PM
Sorry - the ORANGE sunlight (yes, I think we can agree that the sun appears to be ORANGE at sunset) is clearly on the underside of the clouds.   That's clear in my photos and in the one taken from an airplane.

We know the sun is orange right at the point of sunset - presumably FET has some explanation for that...probably the same one as in RET - that the sunlight is passing through more air at that angle and more of the shorter wavelength light is being scattered away.

The color matters because the sun is orange and the UNDERSIDE of the clouds is orange.

For the lower clouds the sun is at the horizon and an orange sunset is occurring.

For the higher clouds the sun is higher in the air and the sunset is not occurring for them.

As mentioned before, if we increase our height rapidly right after sunset we can restore the sun and bring it back into the sky. This is what is happening with the clouds in the instant that photograph was taken -- the lower ones see the sunset and the higher ones do not.

It is not the "underside" of the clouds that are illuminated, it is the portion of the clouds that are lower in altitude that are illuminated. The lower clouds are seeing the sunset.
 
Any questions?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 14, 2017, 08:46:58 PM
Sorry - the ORANGE sunlight (yes, I think we can agree that the sun appears to be ORANGE at sunset) is clearly on the underside of the clouds.   That's clear in my photos and in the one taken from an airplane.

We know the sun is orange right at the point of sunset - presumably FET has some explanation for that...probably the same one as in RET - that the sunlight is passing through more air at that angle and more of the shorter wavelength light is being scattered away.

The color matters because the sun is orange and the UNDERSIDE of the clouds is orange.

For the lower clouds the sun is at the horizon and an orange sunset is occurring.

But in FET it isn't...it's still physically, 30 degrees up in the sky...according to what you've been telling us about sunsets, it only LOOKS like it's on the horizon because of some "weird" perspective thing...right?

If light travels in straight lines (which I agree it does) then how does the light from the sun come down UNDER the clouds, then back up again to light up the undersides?

Quote
For the higher clouds the sun is higher in the air and the sunset is not occurring for them.

As mentioned before, if we increase our height rapidly right after sunset we can restore the sun and bring it back into the sky. This is what is happening with the clouds in the instant that photograph was taken -- the lower ones see the sunset and the higher ones do not.

Any questions?
Yeah...how does this light (that travels in straight lines - you agreed) get from up high in the sky (30 degrees up)...then down, around and under the clouds?   Seems like it's gotta bend in a big curve - turning through an angle of significantly more than 30 degrees to do that.

It is not the "underside" of the clouds that are illuminated, it is the portion of the clouds that are lower in altitude that are illuminated. The lower clouds are seeing the sunset.
Look carefully at the image from the airplane...you can CLEARLY see that a particular cloud is grey on top and orange below - and fading gently from one color to the other.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2017, 09:47:31 PM
But in FET it isn't...it's still physically, 30 degrees up in the sky...according to what you've been telling us about sunsets, it only LOOKS like it's on the horizon because of some "weird" perspective thing...right?

No. Light from objects on the horizon are coming in horizontally. The horizon is at eye level and 90 degrees from zenith, and this is where the light is coming from.

Quote
If light travels in straight lines (which I agree it does) then how does the light from the sun come down UNDER the clouds, then back up again to light up the undersides?

It's not coming from the underside of the clouds. The clouds, or potion of the clouds, are simply at a lower altitude where sunset is occurring. The light is coming in from the side from the horizon.

Quote
Look carefully at the image from the airplane...you can CLEARLY see that a particular cloud is grey on top and orange below - and fading gently from one color to the other.

The top of the grey clouds are at a higher altitude than the orange clouds.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 14, 2017, 10:31:12 PM
But in FET it isn't...it's still physically, 30 degrees up in the sky...according to what you've been telling us about sunsets, it only LOOKS like it's on the horizon because of some "weird" perspective thing...right?

No. Light from objects on the horizon are coming in horizontally. The horizon is at eye level and 90 degrees from zenith, and this is where the light is coming from.

Quote
If light travels in straight lines (which I agree it does) then how does the light from the sun come down UNDER the clouds, then back up again to light up the undersides?

It's not coming from the underside of the clouds. The clouds, or potion of the clouds, are simply at a lower altitude where sunset is occurring. The light is coming in from the side from the horizon.

Quote
Look carefully at the image from the airplane...you can CLEARLY see that a particular cloud is grey on top and orange below - and fading gently from one color to the other.

The top of the grey clouds are at a higher altitude than the orange clouds.

Ok, Tom, let's say the rays are coming at a 90 degree angle. In flat Earth, it is literally impossible for the sun to ever be 90 degrees (i.e. on the same level) as clouds which are  only a few miles above the Earth. The sun could be 93 million miles away and it would still not be 90 degrees from the vertical in a flat Earth scenario.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 14, 2017, 10:53:04 PM
But in FET it isn't...it's still physically, 30 degrees up in the sky...according to what you've been telling us about sunsets, it only LOOKS like it's on the horizon because of some "weird" perspective thing...right?

No. Light from objects on the horizon are coming in horizontally. The horizon is at eye level and 90 degrees from zenith, and this is where the light is coming from.

Quote
If light travels in straight lines (which I agree it does) then how does the light from the sun come down UNDER the clouds, then back up again to light up the undersides?

It's not coming from the underside of the clouds. The clouds, or potion of the clouds, are simply at a lower altitude where sunset is occurring. The light is coming in from the side from the horizon.

Quote
Look carefully at the image from the airplane...you can CLEARLY see that a particular cloud is grey on top and orange below - and fading gently from one color to the other.

The top of the grey clouds are at a higher altitude than the orange clouds.
Wait, wait, wait. Is that seriously what you're claiming now? Really? That not only does perspective somehow mysteriously make the sun go below the horizon, but this apparently actually means that 'the sunset' is like a band of light or something that moves up from bottom to top on these clouds? Alright then, let's see it. Show us the orange sunset across the top of clouds while the bottoms are in darkness. Surely if this is what happens there should be plenty of images of it out there. I'll wait. If that however isn't what you are trying to say here, I urge you to elucidate. Even better, give us some actual rules for how your mysterious perspective works in these scenarios. -grabs popcorn- This gonna be good.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2017, 12:40:14 AM
That not only does perspective somehow mysteriously make the sun go below the horizon

I never claimed that perspective alone caused the sun to go below the horizon. The perspective angles merge in the distance, and photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once. Some of these photons are blocked out since the earth is not perfectly or mathematically flat and there are slight imperfections on the surface, as the perfect lines merge into the non-perfect earth.

Quote
but this apparently actually means that 'the sunset' is like a band of light or something that moves up from bottom to top on these clouds?

Yes. The same thing is claimed to happen on a Round Earth. A person at the bottom of Mt. Everest sees the sunset before a person at the top of Mt. Everest in the Round Earth model. A band of light travels from bottom to top.

Quote
Alright then, let's see it. Show us the orange sunset across the top of clouds while the bottoms are in darkness.

Why should I? Do you disbelieve your own model where there is also a band of light?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 15, 2017, 01:04:45 AM
That not only does perspective somehow mysteriously make the sun go below the horizon

I never claimed that perspective alone caused the sun to go below the horizon. The perspective angles merge in the distance, and photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once. Some of these photons are blocked out since the earth is not perfectly or mathematically flat and there are slight imperfections on the surface, as the perfect lines merge into the non-perfect earth.

Tom, as you have been told in the past, perspective is a function of the eye, not nature.  Nothing of what you say here would cause the sun to illuminate the side or bottoms of clouds. "Crowding of photons" does not change their origin or angle of travel. I can watch a train get smaller in the distance, but the train never changes size or position. The tracks never get any closer together. The is a limitation of my human eye and how my brain interprets what I'm seeing.

You're really being very disingenuous on this one. It is clear those clouds are being illuminated from below.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 15, 2017, 01:13:53 AM
Explain how a sun 3000 miles up can cast a shadow of Mt Rainer onto a layer of clouds?? This mean the light HAS to be BELOW the level of the mountain. Try to create a shadow on your ceiling with a light shining down or even level - you can not do it without angling the light source up.

(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 15, 2017, 02:26:55 AM
That not only does perspective somehow mysteriously make the sun go below the horizon

I never claimed that perspective alone caused the sun to go below the horizon. The perspective angles merge in the distance, and photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once. Some of these photons are blocked out since the earth is not perfectly or mathematically flat and there are slight imperfections on the surface, as the perfect lines merge into the non-perfect earth.

Quote
but this apparently actually means that 'the sunset' is like a band of light or something that moves up from bottom to top on these clouds?

Yes. The same thing is claimed to happen on a Round Earth. A person at the bottom of Mt. Everest sees the sunset before a person at the top of Mt. Everest in the Round Earth model. A band of light travels from bottom to top.

Quote
Alright then, let's see it. Show us the orange sunset across the top of clouds while the bottoms are in darkness.

Why should I? Do you disbelieve your own model where there is also a band of light?
But in RE the sun in fact DOESN'T move from the top to the bottom of the clouds. It will shine upon the bottom of them, and then starting at the location closest to us it the light will vanish from them until they are dark. The tops of the clouds will not be lit from the time the sun goes 'below' them, to the time after sunrise where it is 'above' them. In FE the sun is *always* above the clouds. So how can the light be hitting the clouds from the bottom like that?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 15, 2017, 02:44:09 PM
I never claimed that perspective alone caused the sun to go below the horizon. The perspective angles merge in the distance, and photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once. Some of these photons are blocked out since the earth is not perfectly or mathematically flat and there are slight imperfections on the surface, as the perfect lines merge into the non-perfect earth.

Oh...my...god!

Oh...Tom - you're now proclaiming an entirely new FE theory!  Squished-up photons fighting for space!   How exciting!

I love new theories!  So much more to debunk!

Previously you'd told us that light travels in straight lines.  Just one month ago, in https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6710.msg122642#msg122642 you said:

"I have argued in favor of EA in the past when the theory was first proposed, but have since tended to prefer the theory that light travels in straight lines and that perspective is the explanation for why the view of the sun is limited..."

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/SunsetClouds.png)

So...if the sun is up THERE...and the undersides of the clouds are lit...then the light cannot have followed the straight line path indicated by the blue line to get there.  It can only have followed something like the orange curve...but Tom says that light travels in straight lines...so WTF?!

In that same thread ("Re: Disproof of FET using refraction." - in which I admitted my error in assuming you were claiming that "refraction" causes sunsets) this exchange took place:

From my understanding in his other threads, 'modified' perspective simply postulates that the vanishing point occurs closer than infinity. He makes this claim (his words, not mine) because - roughly - "The Ancient Greeks never studied perspective theory for long distances, so we have no idea how it works for longer distances or if there is a vanishing point closer than at infinity." Essentially from what I've seen, he claims the horizon is due to the point at which perspective makes all lines converge into one point, and going past that somehow can make the sun appear to go behind something it's above.

Yes, this is a general summary of the argument.  The perspective lines meet at a finite distance, not an infinite distance as described by the Ancient Greeks. This describes why the sun appears to descent and meet the horizon a finite distance away, as opposed to an infinite distance away.

As for why the sun disappears from the bottom up, the explanation is that the perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect, and there will be an area upon which something can disappear behind. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe that the sunset takes longer when the seas are calm compared to when they are more disturbed.

Now you're saying "I never claimed that perspective alone caused the sun to go below the horizon."...and reading CAREFULLY, you didn't say that perspective alone caused it to go BELOW the horizon...but you clearly are saying that there is also something about the earth being imperfect...um...OK...kinda.

But this phenomena of clouds being lit from below happens before the sun goes BELOW the horizon...so that's no excuse.

"The perspective angles merge in the distance, and photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once."

Oh boy...this is premium-grade FE bullshit!

What happens with perspective?  Well, light from widely separated points is focussed onto the retina of your eye.  Those rays of light only "merge" in the back of your eyeball...they aren't merging out someplace on the horizon!  You have that entirely backwards.  (Which probably explains why you keep failing to understand to my "Pinhole camera" diagrams...)

So any "crowding of photons" (sorry - there are physicists rolling on the floor laughing at that one!) happens inside your eye...not on the underside of a cloud or someplace out at the horizon.

Really - you'd be able to understand how light works if you concentrated only on the paths that the rays of light take - from their source - to whatever they illuminate - and from there to our eyes.

The light from the sun (which is 30 degrees up in the sky in FE reality) - have to reach the UNDERSIDE of that cloud - without bending (because you agree that doesn't happen).

HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: junker on September 15, 2017, 03:17:06 PM
Great example photos. Can't wait to hear an FE explanation  :)
I'm assuming it'll be biodegradable luminous pink dye sprayed out of NASA aircraft to help with the coverup.  :-)

 :D :D

Last warning for low-content. Next one is a 3-day ban.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 15, 2017, 03:36:44 PM
Great example photos. Can't wait to hear an FE explanation  :)
I'm assuming it'll be biodegradable luminous pink dye sprayed out of NASA aircraft to help with the coverup.  :-)

 :D :D

Last warning for low-content. Next one is a 3-day ban.

I think, given the enormous volume of extremely high-content stuff I post, I should be allowed an occasional piece of light humor...it's not like I'm a serial "low-content-poster".  However, if you believe it's ban-worthy, then this response is too - so could I ask that you pre-emptivly ban me for 3 days right now...I could use a break over the weekend!
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 15, 2017, 03:48:28 PM
Great example photos. Can't wait to hear an FE explanation  :)
I'm assuming it'll be biodegradable luminous pink dye sprayed out of NASA aircraft to help with the coverup.  :-)

 :D :D

Last warning for low-content. Next one is a 3-day ban.

I think, given the enormous volume of extremely high-content stuff I post, I should be allowed an occasional piece of light humor...it's not like I'm a serial "low-content-poster".  However, if you believe it's ban-worthy, then this response is too - so could I ask that you pre-emptivly ban me for 3 days right now...I could use a break over the weekend!
Psst, I believe he was talking about Duniya's
Quote
:D:D
in this instance. ;) But a nice break is exactly what I'll be taking shortly myself.

As a small on topic bit, Tom has mentioned the 'squished up photons' explanation (partly) for his perspective bit before. I'm still not sure how that can be a thing along with being able to see farther when you go up in height thought to be honest. It seems the idea should have a viewing limit of some form where you can't see past 'X' distance.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 15, 2017, 04:03:52 PM
Psst, I believe he was talking about Duniya's
Quote
:D:D
in this instance. ;) But a nice break is exactly what I'll be taking shortly myself.
Hmmm...maybe you're right...I've not been banned yet - and it really would be nice to take a break!
Quote
As a small on topic bit, Tom has mentioned the 'squished up photons' explanation (partly) for his perspective bit before. I'm still not sure how that can be a thing along with being able to see farther when you go up in height thought to be honest. It seems the idea should have a viewing limit of some form where you can't see past 'X' distance.

Oh - really?   I vaguely recall something about "The sun's photons are too bright to grab onto the air"...but that's not the right quote.

The FE folks already have a need for "can't see past 'X'" to explain why you can't see Mount Everest from an airplane.

But photons fighting to get into your eye is pretty hilarious...makes you wonder how telescopes and microscopes work.

It think the deep problem here is that Tom is mentally incapable of seeing "perspective" as a mere phenomenon caused by the focussing of straight-line-traveling-light through a small aperture.

His utter failure to respond to the simplest of geometric explanation in the Pinhole Camera thread is quite telling...and his response to this thread merely amplifies the depth of his confusion.

My diagram clearly shows that no matter how you flim-flam and handwave - the light from the sun can ONLY get under the cloud by bending through an angle of more than 30 degrees.   

All mention of weird perspective and crowding of photons notwithstanding - the light has to get from A to B without curving and it can't.

That means that the sun ain't where Tom thinks it is - and if (as he says) light travels in straight lines - the only POSSIBLE place is buried a few hundred miles underground someplace over in the next continent!



Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 15, 2017, 04:29:22 PM
A sidenote regarding 'squished up photons':

Photons can occupy identical quantum states as each other. That means that no matter how 'squished up' they get, they will not repel each other, so any number of photons can occupy the same space and none of them will get 'blocked out.'

Wikipedia has some good explanations of the relevant quantum mechanics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: inquisitive on September 15, 2017, 07:33:19 PM
But in FET it isn't...it's still physically, 30 degrees up in the sky...according to what you've been telling us about sunsets, it only LOOKS like it's on the horizon because of some "weird" perspective thing...right?

No. Light from objects on the horizon are coming in horizontally. The horizon is at eye level and 90 degrees from zenith, and this is where the light is coming from.

Quote
If light travels in straight lines (which I agree it does) then how does the light from the sun come down UNDER the clouds, then back up again to light up the undersides?

It's not coming from the underside of the clouds. The clouds, or potion of the clouds, are simply at a lower altitude where sunset is occurring. The light is coming in from the side from the horizon.

Quote
Look carefully at the image from the airplane...you can CLEARLY see that a particular cloud is grey on top and orange below - and fading gently from one color to the other.

The top of the grey clouds are at a higher altitude than the orange clouds.
Please provide a diagram to explain in detail.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: inquisitive on September 15, 2017, 07:35:08 PM
Psst, I believe he was talking about Duniya's
Quote
:D:D
in this instance. ;) But a nice break is exactly what I'll be taking shortly myself.
Hmmm...maybe you're right...I've not been banned yet - and it really would be nice to take a break!
Quote
As a small on topic bit, Tom has mentioned the 'squished up photons' explanation (partly) for his perspective bit before. I'm still not sure how that can be a thing along with being able to see farther when you go up in height thought to be honest. It seems the idea should have a viewing limit of some form where you can't see past 'X' distance.

Oh - really?   I vaguely recall something about "The sun's photons are too bright to grab onto the air"...but that's not the right quote.

The FE folks already have a need for "can't see past 'X'" to explain why you can't see Mount Everest from an airplane.

But photons fighting to get into your eye is pretty hilarious...makes you wonder how telescopes and microscopes work.

It think the deep problem here is that Tom is mentally incapable of seeing "perspective" as a mere phenomenon caused by the focussing of straight-line-traveling-light through a small aperture.

His utter failure to respond to the simplest of geometric explanation in the Pinhole Camera thread is quite telling...and his response to this thread merely amplifies the depth of his confusion.

My diagram clearly shows that no matter how you flim-flam and handwave - the light from the sun can ONLY get under the cloud by bending through an angle of more than 30 degrees.   

All mention of weird perspective and crowding of photons notwithstanding - the light has to get from A to B without curving and it can't.

That means that the sun ain't where Tom thinks it is - and if (as he says) light travels in straight lines - the only POSSIBLE place is buried a few hundred miles underground someplace over in the next continent!
Tom has found the word perspective and believes people will believe his use of it, or not.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 15, 2017, 08:19:45 PM
I found a video of a computer model relevant to the discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg)

It's 3 minutes long, uses a sun at a 3000 mile altitude, and clearly shows that the proposed model has no resemblance to any observation.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 16, 2017, 02:34:40 PM
I found a video of a computer model relevant to the discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg)

It's 3 minutes long, uses a sun at a 3000 mile altitude, and clearly shows that the proposed model has no resemblance to any observation.

Wow!  That's a beautiful demonstration!

The FE'ers have to rely on this hokey "alternative perspective" thing to explain maybe 50% of the things that video highlights...but I've debunked that with the "Pinhole camera" proof.   The remaining 50% are mostly things we've discussed here - how the stars appear in the southern hemisphere - how the phases of the moon can't work when you're seeing the moon from all sides - that kind of thing.

I didn't see anything in the video that we haven't already brought up - but I also didn't see anything that the resident FE'ers have actually managed to explain coherently.

Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 16, 2017, 08:12:33 PM
Another one, more specifically about Rowbotham's perspective (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGwS2Btnigo)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 17, 2017, 02:11:24 PM
Another one, more specifically about Rowbotham's perspective (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGwS2Btnigo)

That's good - but it's more complicated (and therefore more open to the usual FE 'fud') than my Pinhole camera description.

For a normal lens, you need to make assumptions about focal lengths and other confusing details - but because you can photograph sunsets perfectly well with a pinhole camera (which is always in focus everywhere) - we can greatly simplify the answer with a simple diagram.   (Which Tom carefully chooses not to comment on!)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 18, 2017, 03:42:29 AM
I just wanna post this guy over here as well, a wonderful video provided by our friend Terry50 showing a plane flying over the clouds where the sun can clearly be seen not only lighting up the clouds from below, but actually seemingly *beneath* the clouds from 28,000 feet. Something that cannot happen on a FE, so long as light travels in straight lines.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6903.msg126147#msg126147

The video for easy reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VJOl67RhpU

So Tom, whatcha got for us? BTW Terry50 has already said it isn't green screen in his original post.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 18, 2017, 09:51:55 AM
You are sitting on your porch, watching a plane fly into the distance. The plane is at an altitude of 5,000 feet at all times. Your porch has a 3.5 foot high fence/deck railing along its perimeter. Your house is located just a little above sea level, looking into a flat horizon. As you sit you can see a bright sky above and you can see the horizon below the top level of your deck railing and between the slits.

It is possible for the receding plane to start off overhead, and as time progresses, eventually appear below the top of the 3.5 foot high deck railing as it approaches the horizon. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

This example above should show how silly the question is; and how the result is clearly due to perspective. You may as well be curious how you can raise your hands above the level of any clouds you see in the distance and be lost in wonder how your 5 foot tall hands can seem to get above clouds which are thousands of feet high in the distance, because this scenario would be as equally confounding, based on your understanding of the world.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 18, 2017, 11:05:36 AM
You are sitting on your porch, watching a plane fly into the distance. The plane is at an altitude of 5,000 feet at all times. Your porch has a 3.5 foot high fence/deck railing along its perimeter. Your house is located just a little above sea level, looking into a flat horizon. As you sit you can see a bright sky above and you can see the horizon below the top level of your deck railing and between the slits.

It is possible for the receding plane to start off overhead, and as time progresses, eventually appear below the top of the 3.5 foot high deck railing as it approaches the horizon. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

This example above should show how silly the question is; and how the result is clearly due to perspective. You may as well be curious how you can raise your hands above the level of any clouds you see in the distance and be lost in wonder how your 5 foot tall hands can seem to get above clouds which are thousands of feet high in the distance, because this scenario would be as equally confounding, based on your understanding of the world.
you should draw a diagram with the lines from the objects to the pov, because your example makes perfect sense in a RE  (and would actually confirm the cloud observations) but wouldn't work in a FE without fudging the perspective lines.
While you are at it, draw also the diagram for the clouds.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 18, 2017, 11:12:46 AM
you should draw a diagram with the lines from the objects to the pov, because your example makes perfect sense in a RE  (and would actually confirm the cloud observations) but wouldn't work in a FE without fudging the perspective lines.
While you are at it, draw also the diagram for the clouds.

My examples also work in a first person 3D video game which assumes a flat surface. In first person mode the character can rise his hand to be above the clouds or planes or other objects in the distance, but that doesn't make the character's hands above the height of those objects.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 18, 2017, 11:37:10 AM
you should draw a diagram with the lines from the objects to the pov, because your example makes perfect sense in a RE  (and would actually confirm the cloud observations) but wouldn't work in a FE without fudging the perspective lines.
While you are at it, draw also the diagram for the clouds.

My examples also work in a first person 3D video game which assumes a flat surface. In first person mode the character can rise his hand to be above the clouds or planes or other objects in the distance, but that doesn't make the character's hands above the height of those objects.
You should draw a diagram for both your example and the cloud observation. 3D games routinely take shortcuts to simulate reality.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 18, 2017, 12:03:44 PM
Is it really so tough imagine?

(https://i.imgur.com/SaBinDb.png)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 18, 2017, 12:21:31 PM
Is it really so tough imagine?

(https://i.imgur.com/SaBinDb.png)
That is not a diagram by any stretch of the imagination. Try again
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 18, 2017, 12:44:58 PM
That is not a diagram by any stretch of the imagination. Try again

How is it not?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 18, 2017, 12:57:32 PM
That is not a diagram by any stretch of the imagination. Try again
How is it not?
You need to draw all the objects, the ground, the point of view and the path of the light connecting them. That way you can ascertain the lines of view and who can see what from where. Yours is just a snapshot from the point of view.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 18, 2017, 01:06:07 PM
That is not a diagram by any stretch of the imagination. Try again
How is it not?
You need to draw all the objects, the ground, the point of view and the path of the light connecting them. That way you can ascertain the lines of view and who can see what from where. Yours is just a snapshot from the point of view.

Are you saying that it's impossible to put your hand above a light pole in the distance?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 18, 2017, 01:07:52 PM
That is not a diagram by any stretch of the imagination. Try again

How is it not?

Please include accurate distances and angles in your diagram so we can mathematically verify your results. Also, please show how you can see the top of the plane you mentioned, since we appear to be seeing the "top" of the Sun in the video.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 18, 2017, 01:09:32 PM
Please include accurate distances and angles in your diagram so we can mathematically verify your results. Also, please show how you can see the top of the plane you mentioned, since we appear to be seeing the "top" of the Sun in the video.

Are you claiming that it's impossible to put your hand above a light pole in the distance?

If you have no disagreement with this assertion then I am not sure where your issue lies.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 18, 2017, 01:13:14 PM
That is not a diagram by any stretch of the imagination. Try again
How is it not?
You need to draw all the objects, the ground, the point of view and the path of the light connecting them. That way you can ascertain the lines of view and who can see what from where. Yours is just a snapshot from the point of view.

Are you saying that it's impossible to put your hand above a light pole in the distance?
you are equivocating. That's why you need to draw a diagram for both your example and the cloud observation. After you've done it we can discuss the matter. I have time, no worries
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 18, 2017, 01:14:43 PM
That is not a diagram by any stretch of the imagination. Try again
How is it not?
You need to draw all the objects, the ground, the point of view and the path of the light connecting them. That way you can ascertain the lines of view and who can see what from where. Yours is just a snapshot from the point of view.

Are you saying that it's impossible to put your hand above a light pole in the distance?
you are equivocating. That's why you need to draw a diagram for both your example and the cloud observation. After you've done it we can discuss the matter. I have time, no worries

If you don't find the scenario depicted to be impossible then I don't see the purpose of further diagrams.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 18, 2017, 01:17:03 PM
That is not a diagram by any stretch of the imagination. Try again
How is it not?
You need to draw all the objects, the ground, the point of view and the path of the light connecting them. That way you can ascertain the lines of view and who can see what from where. Yours is just a snapshot from the point of view.

Are you saying that it's impossible to put your hand above a light pole in the distance?
you are equivocating. That's why you need to draw a diagram for both your example and the cloud observation. After you've done it we can discuss the matter. I have time, no worries

If you don't find the scenario depicted to be impossible then I don't see the purpose of further diagrams.

I'm having a very hard time visualizing what you are saying. A diagram would be very helpful.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 18, 2017, 01:19:54 PM
If you don't find the scenario depicted to be impossible then I don't see the purpose of further diagrams.
because this is not a correct analogy with the OP and if you want to convince me of the contrary you'll need to draw a diagram.  Frankly I don't understand your reluctance. It's a matter of a couple of minutes, if you know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 18, 2017, 01:22:25 PM
If you don't find the scenario depicted to be impossible then I don't see the purpose of further diagrams.
because this is not a correct analogy with the OP and if you want to convince me of the contrary you'll need to draw a diagram.  Frankly I don't understand your reluctance. It's a matter of a couple of minutes, if you know what you're talking about.

How is it not a correct analogy? Just replace the hand with a cloud and put the sun at the lowest light pole.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 18, 2017, 01:26:09 PM
If you don't find the scenario depicted to be impossible then I don't see the purpose of further diagrams.
because this is not a correct analogy with the OP and if you want to convince me of the contrary you'll need to draw a diagram.  Frankly I don't understand your reluctance. It's a matter of a couple of minutes, if you know what you're talking about.

How is it not a correct analogy? Just replace the hand with a cloud and put the sun at the lowest light pole.
the respective positions (in particular of the pov) and the  form of the objects are not the same. You need to draw a diagram. Please do it, or i'll have to conclude that you are not being debating honestly.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 18, 2017, 01:30:58 PM
If you don't find the scenario depicted to be impossible then I don't see the purpose of further diagrams.
because this is not a correct analogy with the OP and if you want to convince me of the contrary you'll need to draw a diagram.  Frankly I don't understand your reluctance. It's a matter of a couple of minutes, if you know what you're talking about.

How is it not a correct analogy? Just replace the hand with a cloud and put the sun at the lowest light pole.
the respective positions (in particular of the pov) and the  form of the objects are not the same. You need to draw a diagram. Please do it, or i'll have to conclude that you are not being debating honestly.

This is an honest debate. I have shown that it is possible for a body low in altitude to appear higher than a body high in altitude. You seem to have no issue with the hand analogy being possible. Therefore your argument against a cloud being seemingly higher than a body at a higher altitude above it is defeated. No further discussion on the subject is required.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 18, 2017, 01:33:28 PM
That is not a diagram by any stretch of the imagination. Try again
How is it not?
You need to draw all the objects, the ground, the point of view and the path of the light connecting them. That way you can ascertain the lines of view and who can see what from where. Yours is just a snapshot from the point of view.

Are you saying that it's impossible to put your hand above a light pole in the distance?
Yes, because your hand is not actually above the light pole in the distance. So yes, it's impossible to have your hand be above the light pole. You can have your hand be above where you perceive the light pole to be, but it is not actually above the light pole. The light from the lamp won't be hitting the bottom of your hand still. This is basic perspective Tom, a course you apparently missed. Something at height X, will never actually be above something at height Y assuming Y>X. By the same token, something below you, cannot appear on top of something above you. The hand in your image is now above you. The ground will never appear to be over one of the streetlights though. Perspective lines *meet* in the distance, they do not cross. They can't cross, because in reality the lines are actually parallel.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 18, 2017, 01:35:25 PM
Yes, because your hand is not actually above the light pole in the distance. So yes, it's impossible to have your hand be above the light pole. You can have your hand be above where you perceive the light pole to be, but it is not actually above the light pole. The light from the lamp won't be hitting the bottom of your hand still. This is basic perspective Tom, a course you apparently missed. Something at height X, will never actually be above something at height Y assuming Y>X. By the same token, something below you, cannot appear on top of something above you. The hand in your image is now above you. The ground will never appear to be over one of the streetlights though. Perspective lines *meet* in the distance, they do not cross. They can't cross, because in reality the lines are actually parallel.

Your hand can appear above the light pole, therefore a cloud can appear above something higher above it.

/thread
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 18, 2017, 01:40:19 PM
Yes, because your hand is not actually above the light pole in the distance. So yes, it's impossible to have your hand be above the light pole. You can have your hand be above where you perceive the light pole to be, but it is not actually above the light pole. The light from the lamp won't be hitting the bottom of your hand still. This is basic perspective Tom, a course you apparently missed. Something at height X, will never actually be above something at height Y assuming Y>X. By the same token, something below you, cannot appear on top of something above you. The hand in your image is now above you. The ground will never appear to be over one of the streetlights though. Perspective lines *meet* in the distance, they do not cross. They can't cross, because in reality the lines are actually parallel.

Your hand can appear above the light pole, therefore a cloud can appear above something higher above it.

/thread

This is actually wrong and is why you need to draw a diagram to scale. The distance from the cloud to the sun and the massive difference in height precludes this. I expect better from you.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 18, 2017, 01:46:03 PM
If you don't find the scenario depicted to be impossible then I don't see the purpose of further diagrams.
because this is not a correct analogy with the OP and if you want to convince me of the contrary you'll need to draw a diagram.  Frankly I don't understand your reluctance. It's a matter of a couple of minutes, if you know what you're talking about.

How is it not a correct analogy? Just replace the hand with a cloud and put the sun at the lowest light pole.
the respective positions (in particular of the pov) and the  form of the objects are not the same. You need to draw a diagram. Please do it, or i'll have to conclude that you are not being debating honestly.

This is an honest debate. I have shown that it is possible for a body low in altitude to appear higher than a body high in altitude. You seem to have no issue with the hand analogy being possible. Therefore your argument against a cloud being seemingly higher than a body at a higher altitude above it is defeated. No further discussion on the subject is required.
the point of view is different. The relatrelative positions are different. You haven't demonstrated anything. Draw the diagram.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 18, 2017, 01:47:01 PM
Yes, because your hand is not actually above the light pole in the distance. So yes, it's impossible to have your hand be above the light pole. You can have your hand be above where you perceive the light pole to be, but it is not actually above the light pole. The light from the lamp won't be hitting the bottom of your hand still. This is basic perspective Tom, a course you apparently missed. Something at height X, will never actually be above something at height Y assuming Y>X. By the same token, something below you, cannot appear on top of something above you. The hand in your image is now above you. The ground will never appear to be over one of the streetlights though. Perspective lines *meet* in the distance, they do not cross. They can't cross, because in reality the lines are actually parallel.

Your hand can appear above the light pole, therefore a cloud can appear above something higher above it.

/thread
Not while your hand is below your plane of vision. As I said, you can have it above where you perceive the pole to be. But the light will not be radiating onto the bottom of your hand. Ergo, your hand still is not above the light pole, just like the sun still is not actually below the clouds and thus cannot be shining on the bottoms of them.

The ground cannot appear above the light pole can it? Can you see through the ground to see a light pole further away on flat ground? That is what you're claiming is happening to the sun here after all. The clouds are below your plane of vision. The sun is and always will be above it. So how does it get below it and below the clouds for this image? Remember, perspective is about how things appear in the distance, not how things are and it will not change what is happening in the real world.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 18, 2017, 01:50:29 PM
If you don't find the scenario depicted to be impossible then I don't see the purpose of further diagrams.
because this is not a correct analogy with the OP and if you want to convince me of the contrary you'll need to draw a diagram.  Frankly I don't understand your reluctance. It's a matter of a couple of minutes, if you know what you're talking about.
How is it not a correct analogy? Just replace the hand with a cloud and put the sun at the lowest light pole.
the respective positions (in particular of the pov) and the  form of the objects are not the same. You need to draw a diagram. Please do it, or i'll have to conclude that you are not being debating honestly.

This is an honest debate. I have shown that it is possible for a body low in altitude to appear higher than a body high in altitude. You seem to have no issue with the hand analogy being possible. Therefore your argument against a cloud being seemingly higher than a body at a higher altitude above it is defeated. No further discussion on the subject is required.
You have NOT demonstrated anything and you seem to be carefully ignoring my diagram that explains the problem here:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/SunsetClouds.png)

Recall: Light travels in straight lines (the blue line) and not in curved lines (the orange line) - so how exactly does the light from the sun light up the underside of the cloud?

Just tell us which path the light from the sun takes.  This shouldn't be a difficult question for you.

Please stop dodging this VERY simple question!
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2017, 12:12:51 AM
You have NOT demonstrated anything and you seem to be carefully ignoring my diagram that explains the problem here:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/SunsetClouds.png)

Recall: Light travels in straight lines (the blue line) and not in curved lines (the orange line) - so how exactly does the light from the sun light up the underside of the cloud?

Just tell us which path the light from the sun takes.  This shouldn't be a difficult question for you.

Please stop dodging this VERY simple question!

The light does not take that path because your side-view depiction of perspective is invalid and not in line with reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Obviously on September 19, 2017, 12:43:35 AM
That video is hilarious! Tom, have you never seen a building from the side? Not at an angle, as it's shown in this video, but actually from the side? Parallel lines remain parallel. It doesn't matter how things looks from the viewer's perspective in this case, because WE are not looking from his/her perspective, we are looking from the side. You are trying to dodge the question again, but no luck this time!
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 19, 2017, 01:02:53 AM
You have NOT demonstrated anything and you seem to be carefully ignoring my diagram that explains the problem here:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/SunsetClouds.png)

Recall: Light travels in straight lines (the blue line) and not in curved lines (the orange line) - so how exactly does the light from the sun light up the underside of the cloud?

Just tell us which path the light from the sun takes.  This shouldn't be a difficult question for you.

Please stop dodging this VERY simple question!

The light does not take that path because your side-view depiction of perspective is invalid and not in line with reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
Tom, your video, no matter how many times you post it, is still garbage and doesn't address the problem of where the sun actually is! Yet again, your crazy perspective might be able to make the sun appear to set, but it would neither appear as the wonderful half sphere we see on the horizon, nor would it be able to shine it's light onto the bottom of clouds. Perspective doesn't change where an object is in the real world. You need to understand this fact or we're just going to repeat this same tired dance every time it's brought up. If you want to claim this about perspective, you need actual real world proof of an object crossing the line of another object via perspective without actually crossing that line in reality. Otherwise you're still stuck with the streetlamp problem. Lift your hand up above the light. Is the light suddenly hitting the bottom of your hand? No. So how does the sun's light hit the bottom of the clouds without hitting the top? How can we see the sun literally underneath the clouds when the clouds are below our plane of vision? Neither are possible with straight lines and perspective, even your fucked up version of it, because the lines don't cross and light travels in straight lines.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 19, 2017, 01:15:18 AM
Tom, using some random person's youtube video that the sun can set like it does in the real world isn't credible. Where is the peer reviewed data? How can we even begin to take you seriously when you refuse to accept anything that proves you wrong (thinking the SOFA software here) and then come back with this nonsense?? This STILL doesn't begin to explain how clouds can be lit from the bottom in a FE scenario because the clouds are subject to your version of perspective, as well.

On perspective, can you explain how an optical illusion has become the basis for so much of FET?

Also, the real CRITICAL question is, why doesn't your sun get smaller as it travels away? If a small sun is only 3000 miles overhead, it should appear MUCH smaller when it is 6000 miles away. Should it not? At 6000 miles, away, it would be a tiny speck.

TIL FEers think youtube is a treasure trove of science and that real scientists are just a bunch of liars looking to...do something bad. Thank you youtube!
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 19, 2017, 01:47:55 AM
You have NOT demonstrated anything and you seem to be carefully ignoring my diagram that explains the problem here:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/SunsetClouds.png)

Recall: Light travels in straight lines (the blue line) and not in curved lines (the orange line) - so how exactly does the light from the sun light up the underside of the cloud?

Just tell us which path the light from the sun takes.  This shouldn't be a difficult question for you.

Please stop dodging this VERY simple question!

The light does not take that path because your side-view depiction of perspective is invalid and not in line with reality.

Then tell us what is incorrect about my diagram?   The sun is at the correct height - the horizontal distance is appropriate for noon (at the right) and sunset (towards the left).

The cloud is where it seems it should be and the blue line is a straight line (as you say it should be) for where the sunlight must hit the cloud.  I just don't see how the blue line can hit the underside of the cloud.

The orange line could - but it can't be right because you and I both agree about light travelling in straight lines.

Then we have our stick-man observer looking up at the clouds - just a few miles away - and wondering how come the underside of the cloud is orange.

Reality allows use to draw side-views does it not?   So do tell which elements of my diagram are incorrect.   All of the diagrams you usually post are side-views...aren't I allowed a side-view?

Does FET physics somehow disallow side-views?

Please let us continue to discuss this diagram because I don't think you've told us what's ACTUALLY wrong about it.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2017, 02:07:42 AM
Then tell us what is incorrect about my diagram?   The sun is at the correct height - the horizontal distance is appropriate for noon (at the right) and sunset (towards the left).

Watch the video. It goes over the error of those scenes. You have presented a non-perspective side view scene which takes place outside of the universe. It does not properly account for perspective. Perspective is not seen that way. Perspective is seen from a view where everything intersects with the vanishing point. You are presenting a geometric scene which disregards empirical perspective. Under your scheme it is impossible for any receding body to ever intersect with a vanishing point -- a scenario which is not seen to occur.

Quote
Reality allows use to draw side-views does it not?   So do tell which elements of my diagram are incorrect.   All of the diagrams you usually post are side-views...aren't I allowed a side-view?

Side-view can be fine, but your scene does not properly account for perspective. The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

The error with your illustration, specifically, is that the cloud would see the sun at the horizon near the vanishing point, due to the perspective that is not properly depicted, not high above it. The light is coming from the side, not above.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 19, 2017, 02:18:57 AM
Then tell us what is incorrect about my diagram?   The sun is at the correct height - the horizontal distance is appropriate for noon (at the right) and sunset (towards the left).

Watch the video. It goes over the error of those scenes. You have presented a non-perspective side view scene which takes place outside of the universe. It does not properly account for perspective. Perspective is not seen that way. Perspective is seen from a view where everything intersects with the vanishing point. You are presenting a geometric scene which disregards empirical perspective. Under your scheme it is impossible for any receding body to ever intersect with a vanishing point -- a scenario which is not seen to occur.

Quote
Reality allows use to draw side-views does it not?   So do tell which elements of my diagram are incorrect.   All of the diagrams you usually post are side-views...aren't I allowed a side-view?

Side-view can be fine, but your scene does not properly account for perspective. The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

The error with your illustration, specifically, is that the cloud would see the sun at the horizon near the vanishing point, due to the perspective that is not properly depicted, not high above it. The light is coming from the side, not above, since the horizon is at 90 degrees from zenith.

OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:

Suppose I'm some distant viewer - on a mountain that's a little lower than the height of the clouds off to the South of the Sun...with  Cloud over to the North-West.   I would see the sun and the under-lit cloud - all from the side view...yes?   Since it's noon for me now, the sun is high in the sky.

I call the little stick figure guy on my cellphone and he says "Hey - that cloud off to your North West is being lit from the underside!

Would not the scene that unfolds look very much like my diagram?   How would *I* see the light rays travelling?

You see, the problem with claiming that "perspective" did it - is that perspective looks different from different places.   If "perspective did it" - how does the cloud "know" where you're looking at it from so it can simultaneously glow orange for some people and be a silvery grey for other people?

I'm sorry - but perspective simply isn't REMOTELY able to explain this.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: inquisitive on September 19, 2017, 02:37:21 AM
Then tell us what is incorrect about my diagram?   The sun is at the correct height - the horizontal distance is appropriate for noon (at the right) and sunset (towards the left).

Watch the video. It goes over the error of those scenes. You have presented a non-perspective side view scene which takes place outside of the universe. It does not properly account for perspective. Perspective is not seen that way. Perspective is seen from a view where everything intersects with the vanishing point. You are presenting a geometric scene which disregards empirical perspective. Under your scheme it is impossible for any receding body to ever intersect with a vanishing point -- a scenario which is not seen to occur.

Quote
Reality allows use to draw side-views does it not?   So do tell which elements of my diagram are incorrect.   All of the diagrams you usually post are side-views...aren't I allowed a side-view?

Side-view can be fine, but your scene does not properly account for perspective. The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

The error with your illustration, specifically, is that the cloud would see the sun at the horizon near the vanishing point, due to the perspective that is not properly depicted, not high above it. The light is coming from the side, not above.
You still ignore explaining the view of the sun from multiple positions and different times of day.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 19, 2017, 02:38:28 AM
Then tell us what is incorrect about my diagram?   The sun is at the correct height - the horizontal distance is appropriate for noon (at the right) and sunset (towards the left).

Watch the video. It goes over the error of those scenes. You have presented a non-perspective side view scene which takes place outside of the universe. It does not properly account for perspective. Perspective is not seen that way. Perspective is seen from a view where everything intersects with the vanishing point. You are presenting a geometric scene which disregards empirical perspective. Under your scheme it is impossible for any receding body to ever intersect with a vanishing point -- a scenario which is not seen to occur.

Quote
Reality allows use to draw side-views does it not?   So do tell which elements of my diagram are incorrect.   All of the diagrams you usually post are side-views...aren't I allowed a side-view?

Side-view can be fine, but your scene does not properly account for perspective. The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

The error with your illustration, specifically, is that the cloud would see the sun at the horizon near the vanishing point, due to the perspective that is not properly depicted, not high above it. The light is coming from the side, not above.

Tom, in your view do you see perspective as a function of the eye or an actual physical change in the world? I'm often confused by how you use perspective to explain things.
Also, could you explain the squished photon thing?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Obviously on September 19, 2017, 02:53:15 AM

OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:


 -- I think you're letting him off the hook to easily!

The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

Nope, it provides an erroneous depiction of perspective. When viewed from the side, a distance away, parallel lines remain parallel. Here's a video I just made to demonstrate this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l0e7yca4uk2y836/IMG_0081.MOV?dl=0 In my video, the view from above onto the entire page shows parallel lines, just like the surface of the supposedly flat earth and the sun that supposedly travels over it in the diagram 3D made. You see the lines begin to converge ONLY when I move the camera closer to one end of the lines. The video you posted is a typical example of flerfer confusion: the author is wrongfully using converging lines in a side view, which never occurs.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2017, 10:41:12 AM

OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:

Suppose I'm some distant viewer - on a mountain that's a little lower than the height of the clouds off to the South of the Sun...with  Cloud over to the North-West.   I would see the sun and the under-lit cloud - all from the side view...yes?   Since it's noon for me now, the sun is high in the sky.

I call the little stick figure guy on my cellphone and he says "Hey - that cloud off to your North West is being lit from the underside!

Would not the scene that unfolds look very much like my diagram?   How would *I* see the light rays travelling?

The cloud is not being lit from the underside. It's being lit from the side. The sun is at the horizon for the cloud -- which is the cloud's side.

The sun's light is a band which rises upwards when it sets, much like in the intro scene of Disney's Gargoyles. Just above the line of darkness is an area of orange, where the light of the sun turns orange before completely setting. The picture happens to catch the cloud when it is half-way intersected with the orange, the lower portion being illuminated with orange, and your interpretation is that it is being illuminated from below rather than from the side. With more time more of the cloud would become orange, and eventually become dark from the bottom up as sunset passes.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2017, 11:22:18 AM

OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:


 -- I think you're letting him off the hook to easily!

The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

Nope, it provides an erroneous depiction of perspective. When viewed from the side, a distance away, parallel lines remain parallel. Here's a video I just made to demonstrate this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l0e7yca4uk2y836/IMG_0081.MOV?dl=0 In my video, the view from above onto the entire page shows parallel lines, just like the surface of the supposedly flat earth and the sun that supposedly travels over it in the diagram 3D made. You see the lines begin to converge ONLY when I move the camera closer to one end of the lines. The video you posted is a typical example of flerfer confusion: the author is wrongfully using converging lines in a side view, which never occurs.

Thoughts?

This is a good video. If I were to repurpose it I would use it to explain that parallel lines are not always parallel and are highly dependent on the perspective of the observer. Your parallel lines do not remain parallel as you move the camera around in your video. When the camera gets close to one end the lines appear to be somewhat pointed towards each other. If those lines were to continue onwards they would eventually touch. You cannot have to lines angled at each other and continuing forever without touching.

Although the lines seem to be parallel from one view point; perspective causes them to point towards each other from another view point, and touch at a vanishing point with enough distance, much like a railroad perspective scene.

It is also possible to draw lines which are angled slightly away from each other in a non-parallel angle and make those lines parallel by moving your camera around the scene. The concept of whether the lines are parallel or not depends on your perspective. There is not one view point which presents fundamental truth -- they are all true.

Your error is that you drew the scene from one view point and arbitrarily declared that viewpoint to be true, for no real particular reason. If you had rested your face on your table, such as where you rested your camera at one of the ends of the lines, and drew lines on the paper, you could equally declare that viewpoint to be more true than all others. And then when you looked at it from above it would look differently. Which is true and why? Is truth based merely on what is more comfortable for your head?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 19, 2017, 11:40:02 AM
Your error is that you drew the scene from one view point and arbitrarily declared that viewpoint to be true, for no real particular reason. If you had rested your face on your table, such as where you rested your camera at one of the ends of the lines, and drew lines on the paper, you could equally declare that viewpoint to be more true than all others. And then when you looked at it from above it would look differently. Which is true and why? Is truth based merely on what is more comfortable for your head?
are you implying that changing one's point of view changes the underlying reality? Because that has consequences. Are you saying that me seeing a sunrise means that Russia is experiencing the Armageddon?  :o  ;D
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 19, 2017, 12:55:19 PM

OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:

Suppose I'm some distant viewer - on a mountain that's a little lower than the height of the clouds off to the South of the Sun...with  Cloud over to the North-West.   I would see the sun and the under-lit cloud - all from the side view...yes?   Since it's noon for me now, the sun is high in the sky.

I call the little stick figure guy on my cellphone and he says "Hey - that cloud off to your North West is being lit from the underside!

Would not the scene that unfolds look very much like my diagram?   How would *I* see the light rays travelling?

The cloud is not being lit from the underside. It's being lit from the side. The sun is at the horizon for the cloud -- which is the cloud's side.

The sun's light is a band which rises upwards when it sets, much like in the intro scene of Disney's Gargoyles. Just above the line of darkness is an area of orange, where the light of the sun turns orange before completely setting. The picture happens to catch the cloud when it is half-way intersected with the orange, the lower portion being illuminated with orange, and your interpretation is that it is being illuminated from below rather than from the side. With more time more of the cloud would become orange, and eventually become dark from the bottom up as sunset passes.
I'm so glad you said that Tom. Prove it. Let's see these clouds with the tops lit up in Orange. Or darkness-orange-sunlight in bands across the clouds.

There are two major flaws with what you're presenting here. The first is that in each of those images, at least a section of the bottom of the cloud is uniformly lit. That's not how the light would function if it was being lit strictly 'from the side' as you claim. It would then simply be lit from the side, and only a small portion of the bottom would be lit, not the whole length. You're also ignoring the video taken from another thread, where the sun is seen literally appearing behind the clouds from a position above them. This is easy to explain on a round Earth. Not so much on a flat, in fact it should be impossible on a flat Earth. The plane of the sun cannot go below the plane of vision of your eyes, and when the clouds are below you like that, it can't end up below them either by the same token. The plane of the clouds and that of the sun are still parallel after all. Just because the limitation of your eye sees them meet, doesn't stop them from not being able to ever cross.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2017, 01:39:02 PM
I'm so glad you said that Tom. Prove it. Let's see these clouds with the tops lit up in Orange. Or darkness-orange-sunlight in bands across the clouds.

Here is a video which shows the top of clouds orange and the bottom of the clouds being dark. Watch from 00:24 to 00:40:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU3tk_Wlw3w

Quote
The plane of the sun cannot go below the plane of vision of your eyes, and when the clouds are below you like that, it can't end up below them either by the same token. The plane of the clouds and that of the sun are still parallel after all. Just because the limitation of your eye sees them meet, doesn't stop them from not being able to ever cross.

This is entirely possible. The clouds are above the horizon and the sun is at the horizon - just like how you can put your hand above the horizon and all distant telephone poles. This was already discussed over the last couple of pages.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 19, 2017, 01:43:03 PM
I'm so glad you said that Tom. Prove it. Let's see these clouds with the tops lit up in Orange. Or darkness-orange-sunlight in bands across the clouds.

Here is a video which shows the top of clouds orange and the bottom of the clouds being dark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU3tk_Wlw3w

Quote
The plane of the sun cannot go below the plane of vision of your eyes, and when the clouds are below you like that, it can't end up below them either by the same token. The plane of the clouds and that of the sun are still parallel after all. Just because the limitation of your eye sees them meet, doesn't stop them from not being able to ever cross.

This is entirely possible. The clouds are above the horizon and the sun is at the horizon - just like how you can put your hand above the horizon and all distant telephone poles. This was already discussed over the last couple of pages.

Nobody is denying that the sun sometimes illuminates the tops of the clouds.  Demonstrating that proves nothing!

The problem you have is that a other times (most obviously when the clouds are relatively high and during the last light of sunset) the clouds are often lit from below.

Proving that sometimes "A" happens is not a valid disproof that at other times "B" happens.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2017, 01:52:58 PM
Nobody is denying that the sun sometimes illuminates the tops of the clouds.  Demonstrating that proves nothing!

The problem you have is that a other times (most obviously when the clouds are relatively high and during the last light of sunset) the clouds are often lit from below.

Proving that sometimes "A" happens is not a valid disproof that at other times "B" happens.

The sunset ended in the video with the tops of the clouds being illuminated, not the bottom of the clouds. Just watch the whole video. The tops of the clouds start off white and end in orange. From 00:45 to 00:50 there are fleeting flashes of orange at the very tops of the clouds towards the sun.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 19, 2017, 01:54:04 PM
Nobody is denying that the sun sometimes illuminates the tops of the clouds.  Demonstrating that proves nothing!

The problem you have is that a other times (most obviously when the clouds are relatively high and during the last light of sunset) the clouds are often lit from below.

Proving that sometimes "A" happens is not a valid disproof that at other times "B" happens.

The sunset ended in the video with the tops of the clouds being illuminated, not the bottom of the clouds. At 00:45 to 00:50 we can see that the very top of the clouds are illuminated as the sun disappears.

The sun is setting from the point of view of a high altitude airplane - we've agreed that the sun sets at different times at different altitudes.

This video does nothing to prove that from the point of view of someone BELOW the clouds, the undersides were not lit at some point in time.

We have plenty of photographs that CLEARLY show the sun lighting clouds from below...if you can't explain those kinds of photos - then you don't have an argument.

Go to Google...click on the "Images" button - then search on the words "Clouds lit from below" - and you'll see many hundreds of photos of clouds lit from below (and a bunch of other junk that isn't that).

The point is that this is a phenomenon that CLEARLY happens.  It's a frequent thing...it's very beautiful, so a lot of people take pictures of it.

If your theory of the world is valid, then you must be able to explain every single photograph like that.

RET has no problem at all explaining them.

Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 19, 2017, 01:54:29 PM
I'm so glad you said that Tom. Prove it. Let's see these clouds with the tops lit up in Orange. Or darkness-orange-sunlight in bands across the clouds.

Here is a video which shows the top of clouds orange and the bottom of the clouds being dark. Watch from 00:24 to 00:40:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU3tk_Wlw3w

Quote
The plane of the sun cannot go below the plane of vision of your eyes, and when the clouds are below you like that, it can't end up below them either by the same token. The plane of the clouds and that of the sun are still parallel after all. Just because the limitation of your eye sees them meet, doesn't stop them from not being able to ever cross.

This is entirely possible. The clouds are above the horizon and the sun is at the horizon - just like how you can put your hand above the horizon and all distant telephone poles. This was already discussed over the last couple of pages.
Not a very strong video for either scenario there Tom. The majority of the clouds are never lit up from the perspective of the camera, either on the top, or the side. The bottoms aren't possible to see because of how dense the cloud cover is.

Tom, you understand the sun never actually gets to the horizon right? I already talked about your light poles but you ignored it. You can place your hand in what appears to be 'over' the light pole all you want, but the light will still not be hitting the bottom of your hand as seen in the video where the sun is shining out from beneath the clouds.

The only way your hand goes 'above' the street lights, is to raise your hand above the plane of the horizon of your eyes. The clouds cannot do this when you are above them. Do you not understand your perspective doesn't actually change where the sun is? The sun is still 3,000 miles high in the sky. It cannot cross to being below the plane of your eye because it's not there. Perspective lines meet, they do not cross, and even that is an optical illusion. The sun cannot go beneath the clouds due to perspective. Doubly so when you are above the clouds and the horizon is also therefore above the clouds due to the horizon always rising to eye level.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 19, 2017, 01:59:38 PM
Tom, there is an underlying confusion that needs to be cleared up, I think.
Perspective is not an inherent physical property, it's a consequence of the way we perceive things.
In very very rough terms, our vision works by detecting light that it's emitted or reflected by an object. The light moves through space in straight lines, and hits our eyes at an angle. That way we know where in space an object is.

See the attached picture.
Imagine that you are laying down at ground level on Tom's porch.
Two meters over your head is a candle. You hold a hand midway between the horizon and the limit of your vision.
Let's assume a field of vision of 90° (it's smaller than in reality, but it's to avoid huge and almost empty pictures)
The red line is the ground.
The green lines are the light going from the candle in various positions to your eye (it's how we see things, remember?)
The red dotted line is the height of the hand
The blue dotted lines are the light going from the candle in variuous positions to your hand.
Underneath you can see your subjective point of view.
we move the candle forward.

point a
distance 2 meters, the candle enters your view, way above your hand.
The light of the candle strikes your eye at a 45° angle, and your hand at a 22,5° angle

point b
distance 10 meters. The candle is ca. level with your hand.
The light of the candle strikes your eye at a 12° angle, and your hand at a 6° angle

point c
distance 30 meters. The candle is way below your hand.
The light of the candle strikes your eye at a 4° angle, and your hand at a 2° angle.

All the time, the candle is above your hand. If you want its light to hit your hand at any negative angle you need to bend the light. You have confirmed in other threads that light doesn't bend. Ergo, case closed. 

And if you think that that's bad, consider that the sun at the FE sunset, is actually at a 23°inclination, way above the 12° of the figure b in my diagram.

See why I wanted you to draw a diagram?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Obviously on September 19, 2017, 03:42:52 PM

OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:


 -- I think you're letting him off the hook to easily!

The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

Nope, it provides an erroneous depiction of perspective. When viewed from the side, a distance away, parallel lines remain parallel. Here's a video I just made to demonstrate this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l0e7yca4uk2y836/IMG_0081.MOV?dl=0 In my video, the view from above onto the entire page shows parallel lines, just like the surface of the supposedly flat earth and the sun that supposedly travels over it in the diagram 3D made. You see the lines begin to converge ONLY when I move the camera closer to one end of the lines. The video you posted is a typical example of flerfer confusion: the author is wrongfully using converging lines in a side view, which never occurs.

Thoughts?

This is a good video. If I were to repurpose it I would use it to explain that parallel lines are not always parallel and are highly dependent on the perspective of the observer. Your parallel lines do not remain parallel as you move the camera around in your video. When the camera gets close to one end the lines appear to be somewhat pointed towards each other. If those lines were to continue onwards they would eventually touch. You cannot have to lines angled at each other and continuing forever without touching.

Although the lines seem to be parallel from one view point; perspective causes them to point towards each other from another view point, and touch at a vanishing point with enough distance, much like a railroad perspective scene.

It is also possible to draw lines which are angled slightly away from each other in a non-parallel angle and make those lines parallel by moving your camera around the scene. The concept of whether the lines are parallel or not depends on your perspective. There is not one view point which presents fundamental truth -- they are all true.

Your error is that you drew the scene from one view point and arbitrarily declared that viewpoint to be true, for no real particular reason. If you had rested your face on your table, such as where you rested your camera at one of the ends of the lines, and drew lines on the paper, you could equally declare that viewpoint to be more true than all others. And then when you looked at it from above it would look differently. Which is true and why? Is truth based merely on what is more comfortable for your head?

Nice try, but no, Tom! First off, it sounds like you didn't read my previous post carefully - please find it in you to re-read it again until you understand what actually said.

Parallel lines always remain parallel (otherwise they wouldn't be called parallel lines, now would they?), they just SEEM to converge from the viewpoints I showed in my video.

The viewpoint WE WERE ACTUALLY DISCUSSING is the one from the side (equivalent to what I was showing with the camera above the notepad with the lines) -- this is where the FE "understanding" of perspective fails miserably, and this is the error in the video you posted (from the side view, the lines should remain parallel). You have not addressed this issue, and flerfers are yet to produce a convincing drawing of their model of how the sun supposedly moves away. Do give this a try, we would all love to see your attempt at this.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2017, 06:34:17 PM
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
Not a very strong video for either scenario there Tom. The majority of the clouds are never lit up from the perspective of the camera, either on the top, or the side. The bottoms aren't possible to see because of how dense the cloud cover is.

The orange sunlight is hitting the tops of the clouds. How can it also be hitting the bottom of the clouds unless the light were coming in from the side?

Tom, there is an underlying confusion that needs to be cleared up, I think.

[snip]

All the time, the candle is above your hand. If you want its light to hit your hand at any negative angle you need to bend the light. You have confirmed in other threads that light doesn't bend. Ergo, case closed. 

And if you think that that's bad, consider that the sun at the FE sunset, is actually at a 23°inclination, way above the 12° of the figure b in my diagram.

See why I wanted you to draw a diagram?

Please refer to the video on the previous page which addresses this. Diagrams are provided in the video.

Nice try, but no, Tom! First off, it sounds like you didn't read my previous post carefully - please find it in you to re-read it again until you understand what actually said.

Parallel lines always remain parallel (otherwise they wouldn't be called parallel lines, now would they?), they just SEEM to converge from the viewpoints I showed in my video.

The viewpoint WE WERE ACTUALLY DISCUSSING is the one from the side (equivalent to what I was showing with the camera above the notepad with the lines) -- this is where the FE "understanding" of perspective fails miserably, and this is the error in the video you posted (from the side view, the lines should remain parallel). You have not addressed this issue, and flerfers are yet to produce a convincing drawing of their model of how the sun supposedly moves away. Do give this a try, we would all love to see your attempt at this.

Why do we need to declare that viewpoint as true? Why not some other viewpoint? You have not provided a coherent argument for why that viewpoint is truer than all other points around it.

If you were to lay your head down on the table and draw what looked like parallel lines, the view from above would show that the lines are not parallel. Your choice of which viewpoint position is true is entirely arbitrary.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 19, 2017, 07:50:10 PM

Please refer to the video on the previous page which addresses this. Diagrams are provided in the video.
That video is nothing short of asinine. And doesn't address anything. If light travels in straight lines, the choice of the subjective view does not make any difference. If the sun is 3000 miles above the plane, it will always be above it. Unless you are implying that my sunrise is torching Russia.
Changing the point of view doesn't change the angles of incidence of the light. You can verify that experimentally.
Edit for further qualification: You are equating the real positions of the objects with the apparent positions, and implying that the apparent positions have the same effect on the world of the real ones. Which is patently absurd.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 19, 2017, 08:04:26 PM
OK, let's try this slightly differently. Here is a (very) rough drawing of how the video with the plane happens on a round Earth. The light from the sun comes in on just about a tangent to the Earth, allowing it to be below 0 degrees in reference to the horizon. Refraction can play some part in this, but it's not needed for this to happen where there is a large section of area mostly flat such as an ocean. The cloud is below the plane, and in fact in between the plane and the sun. Thus creating the appearance of the sun being behind the cloud. Light moves in straight lines, no problems here.

(https://i.imgur.com/RtFA40m.png)

The second image shows the same scene, but on a flat Earth. I've included a yellow line showing where the light of the sun appears to be coming from. Please show us where the sun is that is making this yellow line, and also is 3,000 miles above a point 6,000 miles distant.

(https://i.imgur.com/DATe2TQ.png)

Should be no problem at all right? For reference, here's the video I'm referring to once again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VJOl67RhpU
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 19, 2017, 08:17:07 PM
Tom, you can do the experiment yourself.
Tie a sewing thread to the top of a 6' pole. Keep the spool in your hand, in front of your eyes. Walk backwards until you see the top of the pole under you hand. Measure the angle of the thread. Notice how it's not coming from below, unless it's sagging.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2017, 08:17:48 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/DATe2TQ.png)

Your diagram does not properly depict perspective.

(https://i.imgur.com/JuFJIs4.png)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 19, 2017, 08:20:51 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/DATe2TQ.png)

Your diagram does not properly depict perspective.

(https://i.imgur.com/JuFJIs4.png)

Tom, does perspective rearrange the actual positions of real object?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2017, 08:22:41 PM
Tom, does perspective rearrange the actual positions of real object?

It can put 3 inch tall railroad tracks at your 5'8" eye level. What do you think?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Obviously on September 19, 2017, 08:24:17 PM
Why do we need to declare that viewpoint as true? Why not some other viewpoint? You have not provided a coherent argument for why that viewpoint is truer than all other points around it.

Wow, just wow... I never said one viewpoint is "truer" than another, I was merely pointing out that we were discussing the one where we see the earth, sun, and clouds from the side. Since you're having so much trouble understanding me, I'll try to make it easier for you. Please answer the following questions:

1) do parallel lines exist, at least in theory?
2) in the flat earth model, does the sun move parallel to the supposedly flat surface of the earth?
3) are the clouds generally moving parallel to the supposedly flat surface of the earth?
4) is the sun above or below the clouds?
5) does light move in a straight line?

Let's start with that. Please try to coherently answer these questions.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 19, 2017, 08:29:07 PM
Tom, does perspective rearrange the actual positions of real object?

It can put 3 inch tall railroad tracks at your 5'8" eye level. What do you think?
Yes or no Tom.

Does perspective adjust the actual physical location of objects in the real world?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 19, 2017, 09:42:03 PM
Tom, does perspective rearrange the actual positions of real object?

It can put 3 inch tall railroad tracks at your 5'8" eye level. What do you think?
Yes or no Tom.

Does perspective adjust the actual physical location of objects in the real world?

The problem we have here is that Tom can proudly announce "PERSPECTIVE DID IT!" without ever demonstrating how or why his weird take on perspective actually happens.

Real world perspective (irrespective of flat or round earth models) is a simple consequence of the way eyes, cameras and such like function...hence the pinhole camera analogy.

We can (and DO) routinely use computer graphics to overlay the real world.  It's called "augmented reality".   I've done a lot of work in that area as a part of my job.

Our computer graphics have to line up PERFECTLY with the real world, or the fakery will be obvious.   So it follows that whatever laws of perspective we use must be an excellent match for the real world.

The equation (which I handily derived for you from first principle in the Pinhole camera thread) is super-simple:

   height-on-screen = constant x real-world-height / distance-from-camera-to-object

The constant is calculated from the size of the camera and of the screen.

The proof of this is simple geometry - known since Euclid - the demonstration of it's efficacy is that computer graphics generate the right images - and with augmented reality, any mismatch between the math and reality would be very obvious...and it's not.

But Tom cannot grasp this...I can't see why - the concept is SO simple.

The video he so often presents is bullshit for a couple of very good reasons - so I've started a new thread to debunk THAT.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 19, 2017, 10:20:29 PM
Tom, does perspective rearrange the actual positions of real object?

It can put 3 inch tall railroad tracks at your 5'8" eye level. What do you think?

So you think perspective CHANGES the size/orientation of objects, is that what you mean??? What happens to the poor people on the train that are SMASHED into ever smaller cars?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: inquisitive on September 19, 2017, 10:24:52 PM
Tom, does perspective rearrange the actual positions of real object?

It can put 3 inch tall railroad tracks at your 5'8" eye level. What do you think?
It does not, and you know it does not.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 25, 2017, 03:32:22 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Although the lines seem to be parallel from one view point; perspective causes them to point towards each other from another view point, and touch at a vanishing point with enough distance, much like a railroad perspective scene.

It is also possible to draw lines which are angled slightly away from each other in a non-parallel angle and make those lines parallel by moving your camera around the scene. The concept of whether the lines are parallel or not depends on your perspective.

Quote
Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)#Types_of_perspective) vanishing points exist only when parallel lines are present in the scene

Quote
Also Wikipedia:  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry))Given parallel straight lines l and m in Euclidean space, the following properties are equivalent:
Every point on line m is located at exactly the same (minimum) distance from line l (equidistant lines).
Line m is in the same plane as line l but does not intersect l (recall that lines extend to infinity in either direction).
When lines m and l are both intersected by a third straight line (a transversal) in the same plane, the corresponding angles of intersection with the transversal are congruent.
Since these are equivalent properties, any one of them could be taken as the definition of parallel lines in Euclidean space, but the first and third properties involve measurement, and so, are "more complicated" than the second. Thus, the second property is the one usually chosen as the defining property of parallel lines in Euclidean geometry.[3] The other properties are then consequences of Euclid's Parallel Postulate.

If two lines approach the same vanishing point on a horizon, they are parallel. Railroad tracks are equidistant lines, therefore parallel, and a picture of them that includes a horizon will have a vanishing point. By definition, perspective makes parallel lines 'point towards each other', and yet in reality, they remain equidistant. Also consider the third property of parallel lines, that a transversal will effect congruent angles across both of the parallel lines.

It is NOT possible to draw a scene as you describe - to draw non-parallel lines and make them appear parallel through perspective - because the two lines would have to satisfy all three equivalent properties of parallel lines to actually be parallel! You would have to break out of Euclidean geometry to achieve such a scene, so good luck with that.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Sushi on October 06, 2017, 09:46:04 AM
Ok. When we see the clouds lit from below and Tom said because of perspective, so imagine we can teleport to the sun, and we standing on the top of 3000 miles up sun, then how can we lit those clouds from below?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 06, 2017, 10:02:18 AM
Ok. When we see the clouds lit from below and Tom said because of perspective, so imagine we can teleport to the sun, and we standing on the top of 3000 miles up sun, then how can we lit those clouds from below?

When it is sunset the clouds would see the sun from the side at the horizon. From the sun's perspective it would likewise see the clouds from the side, at the horizon.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Rama Set on October 06, 2017, 10:17:24 AM
Ok. When we see the clouds lit from below and Tom said because of perspective, so imagine we can teleport to the sun, and we standing on the top of 3000 miles up sun, then how can we lit those clouds from below?

When it is sunset the clouds would see the sun from the side at the horizon. From the sun's perspective it would likewise see the clouds from the side, at the horizon.

But, as everyone is aware, a tromp d'oeil does not explain the phenomenon we are talking about.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on October 06, 2017, 12:16:25 PM
Ok. When we see the clouds lit from below and Tom said because of perspective, so imagine we can teleport to the sun, and we standing on the top of 3000 miles up sun, then how can we lit those clouds from below?

When it is sunset the clouds would see the sun from the side at the horizon. From the sun's perspective it would likewise see the clouds from the side, at the horizon.

Tom, I took some pics and will be starting a new thread in the next couple days. Hope you'll pop in.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ga_x2 on October 06, 2017, 12:29:45 PM
Ok. When we see the clouds lit from below and Tom said because of perspective, so imagine we can teleport to the sun, and we standing on the top of 3000 miles up sun, then how can we lit those clouds from below?

When it is sunset the clouds would see the sun from the side at the horizon. From the sun's perspective it would likewise see the clouds from the side, at the horizon.
he/she said below, not from the side
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on October 06, 2017, 01:15:38 PM
Ok. When we see the clouds lit from below and Tom said because of perspective, so imagine we can teleport to the sun, and we standing on the top of 3000 miles up sun, then how can we lit those clouds from below?

When it is sunset the clouds would see the sun from the side at the horizon. From the sun's perspective it would likewise see the clouds from the side, at the horizon.
IF the world was flat, no we would not. The sun would still be at a 20 degree angle of incidence, and you still have not shown how the light from the sun will shift to 'cover' that distance based only on perspective. We have a thread waiting for more information and everything, but at present you are assuming the world is already flat, so everything we see has to be able to happen. You are starting from a position you have yet to prove, so your conclusion is invalid.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on October 11, 2017, 03:12:25 PM
Ok. When we see the clouds lit from below and Tom said because of perspective, so imagine we can teleport to the sun, and we standing on the top of 3000 miles up sun, then how can we lit those clouds from below?

When it is sunset the clouds would see the sun from the side at the horizon. From the sun's perspective it would likewise see the clouds from the side, at the horizon.

Wait - so you're saying that "magic perspective" also works for things that don't focus an image?!?

Are you not aware that perspective ONLY comes about as an artifact of focussing light?

The thing is that neither the sun, nor the clouds are "at the horizon" - the horizon is only an artifact of a viewer.   From the perspective of the sun - it's 3,000 miles up - and a few thousand miles off to the side of where the cloud is.   The cloud is perhaps a few thousand feet to tens of thousands of feet up.

You can't use perspective to explain how the light gets from the sun (which is, undeniably ABOVE the cloud) down to the UNDERSIDE of the cloud.   The reason you can't use perspective is that we have independent viewers all over the surface of the planet who all have a different perspective on what's going on - but all agree that the cloud is lit from beneath.

We don't have "alternate reality" for different people.

So your explanation makes zero sense.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: DuniyaGolHai on October 12, 2017, 11:50:44 AM
What abt these images???

(http://epod.usra.edu/.a/6a0105371bb32c970b01b8d2501165970c-pi)

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52c2a5d1e4b09136f70246a3/t/5957d48a86e6c02259989802/1498928272991/)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Rama Set on October 12, 2017, 03:23:03 PM
Those are exceptional circumstances that fail to explain the OP.  Specifically Mt. Rainier's shadow being cast upwards on to a cloud.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on October 12, 2017, 05:55:37 PM
What abt these images???

(http://epod.usra.edu/.a/6a0105371bb32c970b01b8d2501165970c-pi)

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52c2a5d1e4b09136f70246a3/t/5957d48a86e6c02259989802/1498928272991/)

Well, your first image doesn't work.  We can take photos of under-lit clouds in large deserts where there is no water to reflect the image.
(https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/10/08/17/47/sunset-1724201_960_720.jpg)

Your second image is the correct one - and it demonstrates that the Earth must be round.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Rama Set on October 13, 2017, 01:43:00 AM
What abt these images???

(http://epod.usra.edu/.a/6a0105371bb32c970b01b8d2501165970c-pi)

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52c2a5d1e4b09136f70246a3/t/5957d48a86e6c02259989802/1498928272991/)

Well, your first image doesn't work.  We can take photos of under-lit clouds in large deserts where there is no water to reflect the image.
(https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/10/08/17/47/sunset-1724201_960_720.jpg)

Your second image is the correct one - and it demonstrates that the Earth must be round.

Your image isn't displaying properly unfortunately.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: douglips on October 13, 2017, 03:30:59 AM
Originally posted in its own thread but no flat earth theorists commented.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/lGZ30LhidkSFbv0A2

-----
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017, I flew on Southwest Airlines flight 1293 from SJC to DAL. It happened to be flying over Texas right at local sunset. In addition, to the northwest of Dallas was a beautiful tall thunderstorm. I was able to take pictures of the following phenomena:

- The aircraft clearly illuminated by direct sunlight after local sunset
- A tall wall of clouds illustrating direct sunlight at the top, darkness at the bottom, and twilight illumination in between
- A high layer of clouds illuminated from beneath, and the shadow of a lower cloud cast upon the higher layer

Some of the photos were taken just a few minutes before local sunset (as seen from the ground at the location directly under the aircraft) and some just a few minutes after. The last two photos were taken approximately 5 minutes after local sunset and clearly show that the aircraft is illuminated by direct sunlight.

I view these photos as supporting Round Earth Theory and would be interested in other possible interpretations.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on October 13, 2017, 03:10:27 PM
Your image isn't displaying properly unfortunately.

Ack!  Sorry.  It was a picture of clouds lit from beneath just after sunset over the Sahara desert - where there is no water to reflect the sunlight.

Google "sunset over desert" - you'll find plenty more like it.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Wise as Anything on October 25, 2017, 05:19:59 AM
Explain how a sun 3000 miles up can cast a shadow of Mt Rainer onto a layer of clouds?? This mean the light HAS to be BELOW the level of the mountain. Try to create a shadow on your ceiling with a light shining down or even level - you can not do it without angling the light source up.

(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)

This is proof! Can we put the matter to rest?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: 3DGeek on October 25, 2017, 05:10:14 PM
Explain how a sun 3000 miles up can cast a shadow of Mt Rainer onto a layer of clouds?? This mean the light HAS to be BELOW the level of the mountain. Try to create a shadow on your ceiling with a light shining down or even level - you can not do it without angling the light source up.

(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)

This is proof! Can we put the matter to rest?

Wow!  That is an amazingly cool photo!

Yeah - so it *SHOULD* put the matter to rest - the Earth is hereby proven to be Round...but somehow I doubt that Tom will stop trying to talk about "perspective".

The problem he has is that perspective is an artifact of eyes, cameras, telescopes and such - it's not anything that affects the paths that the photons take.   They simply travel in straight lines.

Tom's confusion vanishes if you simply talk about the paths taken by the photons - which is why he continues to refuse to talk about that.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Obfuscate on December 14, 2017, 10:35:07 PM
Pretty sure NASA have a mirror on the outer edge of the Earth to reflect rays up and under clouds.

(https://image.ibb.co/fE2dVR/Untitled.png)

Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2017, 11:31:05 PM
Explain how a sun 3000 miles up can cast a shadow of Mt Rainer onto a layer of clouds?? This mean the light HAS to be BELOW the level of the mountain. Try to create a shadow on your ceiling with a light shining down or even level - you can not do it without angling the light source up.

(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)

This is proof! Can we put the matter to rest?

As we have discussed in this thread, the sunset creates a band of darkness which originates from the horizon. If the sun is at the horizon at sea level in that picture, it is looking up at the mountain in the foreground, and therefore a shadow is created.

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Scroogie on December 15, 2017, 12:52:43 AM

You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.

Truth be told, one can't learn anything of value by reading ENAG.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Roger G on December 15, 2017, 01:07:47 AM
Explain how a sun 3000 miles up can cast a shadow of Mt Rainer onto a layer of clouds?? This mean the light HAS to be BELOW the level of the mountain. Try to create a shadow on your ceiling with a light shining down or even level - you can not do it without angling the light source up.


This is proof! Can we put the matter to rest?

As we have discussed in this thread, the sunset creates a band of darkness which originates from the horizon. If the sun is at the horizon at sea level in that picture, it is looking up at the mountain in the foreground, and therefore a shadow is created.

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.
If this was a five year old child giving this explanation, I would pat it on the head and say "oh yes very clever dear, now it's time for bed". Coming from a grown man, I find it highly embarrassing that he may actually believe this garbage!! If the distant lamp post was looking up at my hand it would have shrunk to below my hand height. As Tom is about the only FE poster that bothers to get regularly involved in technical discussions and can only quote Rowbothams outrageous tongue in cheek pseudo science babble as fact, I think that there is no chance of any serious progress after statements like the above.

[/quote]
You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.

[/quote]
Oh Noooo not again!!!  :o I think I'm stuck in Groundhog day! The last 6 pages of totally debunking the whole perspective nonsense has arrived back at the start of the endless loop! Either that or Tom has had a breakdown.

Roger
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2017, 01:26:35 AM
As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.


If this was a five year old child giving this explanation, I would pat it on the head and say "oh yes very clever dear, now it's time for bed". Coming from a grown man, I find it highly embarrassing that he may actually believe this garbage!! If the distant lamp post was looking up at my hand it would have shrunk to below my hand height. As Tom is about the only FE poster that bothers to get regularly involved in technical discussions and can only quote Rowbothams outrageous tongue in cheek pseudo science babble as fact, I think that there is no chance of any serious progress after statements like the above.

For all intents, from that perspective, the distant lamp post did shrink below your hand height. A moral of Earth Not a Globe is that we must make our conclusions for the world from first principles rather than theory.

Rowbotham concludes that the nature of perspective does not operate according to an Euclidean rule set, and there is really no reason to assume that it does. Perspective operates as it is observed to operate, not according to an ancient model of reality.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on December 15, 2017, 01:34:08 AM
Explain how a sun 3000 miles up can cast a shadow of Mt Rainer onto a layer of clouds?? This mean the light HAS to be BELOW the level of the mountain. Try to create a shadow on your ceiling with a light shining down or even level - you can not do it without angling the light source up.

(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)

This is proof! Can we put the matter to rest?

As we have discussed in this thread, the sunset creates a band of darkness which originates from the horizon. If the sun is at the horizon at sea level in that picture, it is looking up at the mountain in the foreground, and therefore a shadow is created.

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.

Tom, go stand by a light post that is causing and object to cast a shadow. Now, go ahead and change your perspective all you want. Lay on the ground, climb a tree, whatever. That shadow will not change. Objects don't "see" perspective. Shadows don't give a hoot about what your eyes and brain think they see. Shadows only care about the light source.

Let's go back to your magic bullet. When you fire that magic bullet right at the Sun when it is on the horizon, does it hit the Sun as you have claimed in that past the it would???
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Roger G on December 15, 2017, 01:35:01 AM
As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.


If this was a five year old child giving this explanation, I would pat it on the head and say "oh yes very clever dear, now it's time for bed". Coming from a grown man, I find it highly embarrassing that he may actually believe this garbage!! If the distant lamp post was looking up at my hand it would have shrunk to below my hand height. As Tom is about the only FE poster that bothers to get regularly involved in technical discussions and can only quote Rowbothams outrageous tongue in cheek pseudo science babble as fact, I think that there is no chance of any serious progress after statements like the above.

The distant lamp post did shrink below your hand height. A moral of Earth Not a Globe is that the nature of perspective does not operate according to an Euclidean rule set, and there is really no reason to assume that it does. Perspective operates as it is observed to operate, not according to an ancient mathematical model of reality.
Break perspective down into intersecting lines, angles, or anything else you want, but the fact is that perspective has absolutely nothing to do with the actual size of real life objects and is merely a word describing the limitations of our own viewing ability giving the impression that objects get smaller the further away they are. It is an OPTICAL ILLUSION. If you are unsure of what an optical illusion is, here is a definition:- 'something that deceives the eye by appearing to be other than it is.
an experience of seeming to see something which does not exist or is other than it appears.'


Perhaps you and Rowbotham are confusing real life with art, as an object depicted as being distant in a painting or drawing will indeed be drawn much smaller than the same object drawn to appear closer. I can assure you that in real life, if you stand next to a lamp post at the limits of your visibility, you will still be the same relative height to it as you would if it was at your starting point.

You really must let go of Earth Is Not A Globe and get out into the real world to avoid making yourself look foolish by religiously following the false teachings of a pseudo scientist.

Roger


Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Rama Set on December 15, 2017, 01:49:36 AM
Tom couldn’t possibly recreate his version of perspective with a scale model. If he did, I would believe the Earth is round in a heartbeat.

Disclaimer: If someone does indeed want to undertake this to change my mind, let’s have a talk about parameters.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Haws on December 15, 2017, 03:47:40 AM
Perspective operates as it is observed to operate, not according to an ancient model of reality.

Tom, perspective does not operate. Perspective is only an artistic device. It is an invention to simplify art. It is not real.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Haws on December 15, 2017, 05:36:23 AM
Tom, if you do insist on referring to perspective, this is how you do it correctly. The below is a perspective time lapse drawing of a receding flat earth sun on a stick. Everything is both in perspective and mathematically accurate for a sun that passes its zenith to your left and recedes just to the right of where you are looking.

(https://preview.ibb.co/iZvoEm/Untitled.png) (https://ibb.co/h92DfR)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2017, 06:20:31 AM
Tom, if you do insist on referring to perspective, this is how you do it correctly. The below is a perspective time lapse drawing of a receding flat earth sun on a stick. Everything is both in perspective and mathematically accurate

Prove that the rules of perspective operate on that continuous model where perspective lines descend into the horizon for infinity.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Haws on December 15, 2017, 06:27:13 AM
Prove that the rules of perspective operate on that continuous model where perspective lines descend into the horizon for infinity.

First of all, there is really nothing to prove with perspective. It is simply an invention designed to help artists make drawings look pleasing. A pleasing drawing is all the proof you can get with perspective. And that is all I gave you.

Second, there is nothing on my drawing that requires you to conclude that the "perspective lines descend into the horizon for infinity". Infinity is not labeled and it is not implied. Assume what you want to assume. Perspective was only invented to aid your intuition and to help artists communicate. Maybe your intuition is saying "infinityyyyyyyyyyyyyyy".  :D

All I have done is apply real world geometric calculations to help me produce a perspective rendition. The rendition is not reality. The calculations aren't either. But with the calculations, you can make predictions. With perspective you cannot; it's only an artist's trick.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on December 15, 2017, 02:00:29 PM
Tom, if you do insist on referring to perspective, this is how you do it correctly. The below is a perspective time lapse drawing of a receding flat earth sun on a stick. Everything is both in perspective and mathematically accurate

Prove that the rules of perspective operate on that continuous model where perspective lines descend into the horizon for infinity.

Why don't you prove that it isn't continuous? There is no evidence of this discontinuity that you claim exists. You're the one making the claim that the universe is noncontinuous at a macro level. The burden of proof is one you.

Also, for the sake of argument, let's say that parallel lines do eventually converge. That implies that they then cross and start traveling apart. It also implies that lines coming from behind your position would be further apart, unless you are claiming they magically bow around you. Your silly hypothesis holds no water.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2017, 05:22:11 PM
Tom, if you do insist on referring to perspective, this is how you do it correctly. The below is a perspective time lapse drawing of a receding flat earth sun on a stick. Everything is both in perspective and mathematically accurate

Prove that the rules of perspective operate on that continuous model where perspective lines descend into the horizon for infinity.

Why don't you prove that it isn't continuous?

We see that perspective lines meet in the distance, in a rail road perspective scene for example, and therefore perspective is not continuous.

Quote
There is no evidence of this discontinuity that you claim exists. You're the one making the claim that the universe is noncontinuous at a macro level. The burden of proof is one you.

Reality is on our side. Lines meet in the distance. You are the one claiming that it there is an illusion occurring and that there are hidden pockets of infinity in such scenes.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: inquisitive on December 15, 2017, 05:26:14 PM
Tom, if you do insist on referring to perspective, this is how you do it correctly. The below is a perspective time lapse drawing of a receding flat earth sun on a stick. Everything is both in perspective and mathematically accurate

Prove that the rules of perspective operate on that continuous model where perspective lines descend into the horizon for infinity.

Why don't you prove that it isn't continuous?

We see that perspective lines meet in the distance, in a rail road perspective scene for example, and therefore perspective is not continuous.

Quote
There is no evidence of this discontinuity that you claim exists. You're the one making the claim that the universe is noncontinuous at a macro level. The burden of proof is one you.

Reality is on our side. Lines meet in the distance. You are the one claiming that it there is an illusion occurring and that there are hidden pockets of infinity in such scenes.
Lines get closer as seen by our eyes, they clearly do not meet.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Haws on December 15, 2017, 05:55:24 PM
Reality is on our side. Lines meet in the distance. You are the one claiming that it there is an illusion occurring and that there are hidden pockets of infinity in such scenes.

No, TB. They are "scenes", drawings, renderings, conceptions, approximations. They are not reality. You are the one who needs to prove that perspective exists outside the canvas, the human mind, and the observer.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2017, 06:44:00 PM
Reality is on our side. Lines meet in the distance. You are the one claiming that it there is an illusion occurring and that there are hidden pockets of infinity in such scenes.

No, TB. They are "scenes", drawings, renderings, conceptions, approximations. They are not reality. You are the one who needs to prove that perspective exists outside the canvas, the human mind, and the observer.

Lines meet in the distance. This is an empirical observation. If you are claiming that it is an illusion and that there are hidden pockets of infinity there, that is your burden to demonstrate. You are claiming an illusion! That is squarely on you to show.

If you guys cannot show this then there is no reason to assume that perspective adheres to Euclid's ancient mathematical model.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 15, 2017, 07:24:14 PM
Reality is on our side. Lines meet in the distance. You are the one claiming that it there is an illusion occurring and that there are hidden pockets of infinity in such scenes.

No, TB. They are "scenes", drawings, renderings, conceptions, approximations. They are not reality. You are the one who needs to prove that perspective exists outside the canvas, the human mind, and the observer.

Lines meet in the distance. This is an empirical observation. If you are claiming that it is an illusion and that there are hidden pockets of infinity there, that is your burden to demonstrate. You are claiming an illusion! That is squarely on you to show.

If you guys cannot show this then there is no reason to assume that perspective adheres to Euclid's ancient mathematical model.
You're claiming perspective has a physical effect upon the world. i.e. that perspective causes the suns rays to terminate at a certain distance from the sun. What exactly is your evidence here again? Because last I checked every shred of it depends upon the supposition that the Earth is flat. IF the Earth is flat, Euclidean geometry breaks down at long distances for unknown and unexplained reasons. IF the Earth is a sphere, it does not. To me this puts the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders to show a scenario NOT reliant on a flat/sphere Earth that proves your proposition. You like to cite planes/clouds, but those will also come down to the horizon for the same reason the sun will when they fly at a steady altitude (which they do). Euclidean geometry tracks correctly for the location of planes from our perspective when the Earth is assumed spherical. You talk about 'parallel perspective lines' and oxymoron with no meaning. Parallel lines will not meet. Fact. That's the definition of parallel. Perspective lines are not parallel, but perspective has no influence on the real world. It's a way to represent a 3D world on a 2D plane (like our eyes). Those railroad tracks do not actually meet. That light does not look 'up' to see your raised hand.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on December 15, 2017, 07:25:53 PM
Reality is on our side. Lines meet in the distance. You are the one claiming that it there is an illusion occurring and that there are hidden pockets of infinity in such scenes.

No, TB. They are "scenes", drawings, renderings, conceptions, approximations. They are not reality. You are the one who needs to prove that perspective exists outside the canvas, the human mind, and the observer.

Lines meet in the distance. This is an empirical observation. If you are claiming that it is an illusion and that there are hidden pockets of infinity there, that is your burden to demonstrate. You are claiming an illusion! That is squarely on you to show.

If you guys cannot show this then there is no reason to assume that perspective adheres to Euclid's ancient mathematical model.

Actually, you may need your eyes checked, Tom. They do not meet.

1) If I use a telescope, suddenly the lines extend out much further. My perspective has not changed. All that has changed is the resolving power available to my eyes. Does this change the world? No.
2) If they meet, then this implies they would then diverge after crossing. Is that the case in your hypothesis? What would prevent the lines from diverging.
3) It also implies that they expand behind you, which is not the case. Are you proposing that the whole world morphs around you? That is what we see empirically.

What makes you think your eyes are the final arbiter on the state of the universe? Someone with younger eyes can likely see further. Does that mean their world is different?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Roger G on December 16, 2017, 01:24:53 AM
Tom you keep asking for proof so I will repeat what I have said previously.

Find a length of straight railroad track several miles long and measure the distance between the rails. Make a note of the point in the distance where they appear to meet and either go to that point, or send a helper there. Measure the distance between the rails at that point, then proceed the same distance again once more measuring the distance between the rails at each stopping point.

After repeating this a few times have a look at the measured distances between the rails and you will see that the difference between the measurements is zero. If you then add up the total distance travelled and then check over that distance the convergence of the rails, you will see that it is still zero. If you have a long enough track and enough time on your hands you will still get the same result no matter how far you travel. If you then multiply the difference between the rail distance variation and infinity, you will still get ZERO! It's a simple fact of observation which you keep going on about and any people here who subscribe to your or rather Rowbotham's ridiculous perspective theory can try it for themselves.

Perspective is an optical illusion not a reality, so just as a reminder, here is a definition of optical illusion again:-
'Something that tricks your eyes and makes you think you see something that is not really there, or see it differently from how it really is'

Roger
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2017, 01:48:49 AM
I did not suggest that the railroad tracks physically met. They meet in perspective. Everything merges to perspective at the horizon.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Haws on December 16, 2017, 03:46:26 AM
I did not suggest that the railroad tracks physically met. They meet in perspective.

Fair enough. Reasonable. And as always, thank you for your civility.

Everything merges to perspective at the horizon.

1.
I am not sure this means anything to me. What's confusing is the phrase "merges to perspective" and in particular "to perspective". Am I detecting an esoteric meaning of perspective? My understanding was that "perspective" was a system devised for projecting things onto a canvass. And I don't understand how anything can merge to a system.

2.
Making some assumption about what you may be saying, I think it may be false. The mountains and the sun are not merged into anything in the drawing below.

(https://preview.ibb.co/cWCqvR/Untitled.png) (https://ibb.co/e4nOFR)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on December 16, 2017, 05:20:09 AM
I did not suggest that the railroad tracks physically met. They meet in perspective. Everything merges to perspective at the horizon.

But you have also said that a projectile fired at the horizon at sunset would hit the sun. You bounce between real physical changes and optical illusions as needed to fit your hypothesis.

Pictures like this can't happen unless the sun is actually below the level of the clouds. And no, perspective can't cause that to happen.
(http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/mt-ranier-casting-a-shadow-upward-to-clouds-sky-tacoma-washington.jpg?w=800&h=451)
http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/mt-ranier-casting-a-shadow-upward-to-clouds-sky-tacoma-washington.jpg?w=800&h=451 (http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/mt-ranier-casting-a-shadow-upward-to-clouds-sky-tacoma-washington.jpg?w=800&h=451)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Roger G on December 16, 2017, 11:51:12 AM
I did not suggest that the railroad tracks physically met. They meet in perspective. Everything merges to perspective at the horizon.

What you actually said was 'Lines meet in the distance. This is an empirical observation.' Now you are saying that they don't physically meet, so can I assume that you now agree that lines appearing to meet in perspective is an optical illusion?

You also stated 'Everything merges to perspective at the horizon.'  This is also incorrect as clearly shown in Tom H's sketch. Only smaller objects that the eye can no longer resolve appear to merge in perspective on the horizon. Objects that are much larger and higher will be visible far beyond the smaller objects, true in both flat and spherical earth models. The difference with a flat earth being that large objects such as mountains or large celestial objects would be visible hundreds of miles away, but clearly are not on a spherical earth.

Roger
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ratboy on December 17, 2017, 07:53:15 PM
I never claimed that perspective alone caused the sun to go below the horizon. The perspective angles merge in the distance, and photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once. Some of these photons are blocked out since the earth is not perfectly or mathematically flat and there are slight imperfections on the surface, as the perfect lines merge into the non-perfect earth.

Oh...my...god!

Oh...Tom - you're now proclaiming an entirely new FE theory!  Squished-up photons fighting for space!   How exciting!

I love new theories!  So much more to debunk!

Previously you'd told us that light travels in straight lines.  Just one month ago, in https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6710.msg122642#msg122642 you said:

"I have argued in favor of EA in the past when the theory was first proposed, but have since tended to prefer the theory that light travels in straight lines and that perspective is the explanation for why the view of the sun is limited..."

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/SunsetClouds.png)

So...if the sun is up THERE...and the undersides of the clouds are lit...then the light cannot have followed the straight line path indicated by the blue line to get there.  It can only have followed something like the orange curve...but Tom says that light travels in straight lines...so WTF?!

In that same thread ("Re: Disproof of FET using refraction." - in which I admitted my error in assuming you were claiming that "refraction" causes sunsets) this exchange took place:

From my understanding in his other threads, 'modified' perspective simply postulates that the vanishing point occurs closer than infinity. He makes this claim (his words, not mine) because - roughly - "The Ancient Greeks never studied perspective theory for long distances, so we have no idea how it works for longer distances or if there is a vanishing point closer than at infinity." Essentially from what I've seen, he claims the horizon is due to the point at which perspective makes all lines converge into one point, and going past that somehow can make the sun appear to go behind something it's above.

Yes, this is a general summary of the argument.  The perspective lines meet at a finite distance, not an infinite distance as described by the Ancient Greeks. This describes why the sun appears to descent and meet the horizon a finite distance away, as opposed to an infinite distance away.

As for why the sun disappears from the bottom up, the explanation is that the perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect, and there will be an area upon which something can disappear behind. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe that the sunset takes longer when the seas are calm compared to when they are more disturbed.

Now you're saying "I never claimed that perspective alone caused the sun to go below the horizon."...and reading CAREFULLY, you didn't say that perspective alone caused it to go BELOW the horizon...but you clearly are saying that there is also something about the earth being imperfect...um...OK...kinda.

But this phenomena of clouds being lit from below happens before the sun goes BELOW the horizon...so that's no excuse.

"The perspective angles merge in the distance, and photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once."

Oh boy...this is premium-grade FE bullshit!

What happens with perspective?  Well, light from widely separated points is focussed onto the retina of your eye.  Those rays of light only "merge" in the back of your eyeball...they aren't merging out someplace on the horizon!  You have that entirely backwards.  (Which probably explains why you keep failing to understand to my "Pinhole camera" diagrams...)

So any "crowding of photons" (sorry - there are physicists rolling on the floor laughing at that one!) happens inside your eye...not on the underside of a cloud or someplace out at the horizon.

Really - you'd be able to understand how light works if you concentrated only on the paths that the rays of light take - from their source - to whatever they illuminate - and from there to our eyes.

The light from the sun (which is 30 degrees up in the sky in FE reality) - have to reach the UNDERSIDE of that cloud - without bending (because you agree that doesn't happen).

HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?
I had not seen this diagram used before I drew mine.  It is pure coincidence (except that the distance makes practical sense) that I used 6000 miles for the distance to the point directly under the sun.  But in order for the angle to work, my sun has to be 20 miles up in a FE.  I am talking about my thread called "What I have seen" which is getting no debate and I am jealous. 
I see here that a claim is made that you can see farther if you go higher.  That would in part explain why I could see the sun when I went 3 miles farther and 50 feet higher.  However, other people that were lower than me could see the sun when they were out on the arctic ice and there was nothing to block the near zero degree angle of the sun.  When you have not seen the sun for months, it is a big deal and people pay attention to times and days when they can catch a glimpse.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Hmmm on December 17, 2017, 08:24:33 PM
Ratboy, i wrote a frenzy post about this:
"Sunshine on bottom of clouds" topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8083.msg135399#msg135399)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ratboy on December 17, 2017, 09:18:03 PM
Ratboy, i wrote a frenzy post about this:
"Sunshine on bottom of clouds" topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8083.msg135399#msg135399)
People can believe that nothing is real, but every time I drop a hammer on my toe it hurts whether I believe it to be real or not.  If it hurts sometimes and does not hurt other times, I would be more inclined to believe it is all an illusion.  If I stare at the sun, I believe I will lose my sight. I am not going to risk it all being an illusion.  If I drive over this bridge with my car, it will hold me up, unless it is a government plot.  I chose to trust the government enough to cross the river. That is where I come from.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Rounder on December 17, 2017, 10:33:08 PM
If I stare at the sun, I believe I will lose my sight.
I believe you would too, and so does the woman who suffered permanent damage to her eyesight (https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/7/16746040/eclipse-2017-solar-retinopathy-sun-damage-eyes) by failing to heed the warnings about eclipse viewing:

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9827897/Screen_Shot_2017_12_07_at_11.07.28_AM.png)
(http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/171206111106-eclipse-eye-damage-exlarge-169.jpg)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Roger G on December 17, 2017, 10:43:21 PM
There are some fantastic and innovative theories being put forward for the sun shining on the bottom of clouds. They range from nanorobots, reflections from the sea, magic perspective, bending light etc. However I have one simplistic theory that explains the sun seeming to disappear at sunset and cast light on the bottom of the clouds. At the risk of being called stupid and suffering massive humiliation, I'll say it quietly, I feel that the answer could be that the earth is just a globe like the other planets and is rotating at 1 revolution per day.  :o

Roger
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Hmmm on December 17, 2017, 10:51:07 PM
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9827897/Screen_Shot_2017_12_07_at_11.07.28_AM.png)
(http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/171206111106-eclipse-eye-damage-exlarge-169.jpg)
Rounder, wow, it looks both beautiful and a little scary! :o
Although i will disagree with you (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6783.msg123665#msg123665): i think there are people out there who can safely look at the eclipse with their naked eyes, and i think blindness from the eclipse depends on an individual self.
Yes, i could be totally wrong, but this is what i believe right now!


Roger G, how about an idea that the Earth is a spheroid but at a larger scale + continents of the Earth could be shaped differently and have different locations and scale, rather than we've been taught??
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Roger G on December 18, 2017, 01:29:00 AM

Roger G, how about an idea that the Earth is a spheroid but at a larger scale + continents of the Earth could be shaped differently and have different locations and scale, rather than we've been taught??

Well it's an idea but why do you feel they need to be shaped differently or at a larger scale? Centuries of mapping, navigation and recently gps plotting all seem to work well to give precise locations, why would you think that things may be different?

Roger
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Rounder on December 18, 2017, 02:03:52 AM
Although i will disagree with you (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6783.msg123665#msg123665): i think there are people out there who can safely look at the eclipse with their naked eyes, and i think blindness from the eclipse depends on an individual self.
Yes, i could be totally wrong, but this is what i believe right now!

Based on what?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: douglips on December 18, 2017, 06:50:01 AM

If you guys cannot show this then there is no reason to assume that perspective adheres to Euclid's ancient mathematical model.

What is the reason to assume that perspective adheres to your non-mathematical model?

Euclid's model works in all ways we can observe, so you retreat to observations that cannot be made like examining parallel lines at infinity. Your model works in no ways we can observe, and you can only speculate that it works as you say it does.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Havonii on December 20, 2017, 02:01:24 AM

If you guys cannot show this then there is no reason to assume that perspective adheres to Euclid's ancient mathematical model.

What is the reason to assume that perspective adheres to your non-mathematical model?

Euclid's model works in all ways we can observe, so you retreat to observations that cannot be made like examining parallel lines at infinity. Your model works in no ways we can observe, and you can only speculate that it works as you say it does.

And we can't forget the Law of Observation - our mere presence in observing the universe changes the way it behaves and is perceived.

Atoms and particles are all possibility until we look at them. What if the Earth is actually infinitely stretched in all directions, as the atoms take the attributes of waves?, but as soon as we observe the Earth it appears to us as a single possibility, as we see it, and becomes round again?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Wise as Anything on December 20, 2017, 04:02:49 AM
Explain how a sun 3000 miles up can cast a shadow of Mt Rainer onto a layer of clouds?? This mean the light HAS to be BELOW the level of the mountain. Try to create a shadow on your ceiling with a light shining down or even level - you can not do it without angling the light source up.

(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)

This is proof! Can we put the matter to rest?

As we have discussed in this thread, the sunset creates a band of darkness which originates from the horizon. If the sun is at the horizon at sea level in that picture, it is looking up at the mountain in the foreground, and therefore a shadow is created.

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.

No, a lamp post that is taller than your hand can never be looking up at your hand no matter how far off into the distance it is. This is truly mind boggling logic. Reminds me of something I read in a Harry Potter book.

Are you suggesting that the lamp post on the horizon has in fact gotten smaller due to its distance from you? If this is the case, what would happen to a man who happens to be standing beside that post? I ask this because he will not observe himself shrinking as he walks away from you, however, according to this theory, I will see him shrink and he will be looking up at me.

Can I get a definitive answer to this question: Does perspective literally alter the size of objects according to flat Earth theory?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 20, 2017, 02:52:09 PM
Can I get a definitive answer to this question: Does perspective literally alter the size of objects according to flat Earth theory?
I'm hoping we can get a clear and precise answer to this as well. Unfortunately the track record on this is not good. Every time it's brought up Tom swears up and down perspective doesn't alter anything physically. But then you get comments like the one he made above, where it requires a physical alteration of space in order for his statement to be true. This is something we can even measure!

If I lay down on the ground, and my buddy gets up on a table. I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Haws on December 20, 2017, 03:57:45 PM
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 20, 2017, 04:21:58 PM
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?
So, looking over this again might be missing the 'horizon' bit. But not sure how that makes a difference. Place us 3 miles apart. Distance means I probably only need to go up 2 feet to have my hand 'over' his head. My hand is now 2 feet up compared to his 10 foot high head. How can he possibly need to be looking 'up' to see my hand?

This entire thing is coming back to the theodolite, and the FE requirement that the dip angle doesn't exist. Despite every instrument we have telling us it does. The ONLY thing that claims there isn't one, is EnaG/the human eye, and we have (presently) only the first source to corroborate the second claim. If the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, the entirety of FE perspective is thrown out I think. Anyone on the coast able to attempt to falsify the Theodolite experiment? If a dip angle can be proven to exist, Tom's leg to stand on is thrown out, and perspective cannot function in the way FE needs it to.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Havonii on December 20, 2017, 06:58:55 PM
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?
So, looking over this again might be missing the 'horizon' bit. But not sure how that makes a difference. Place us 3 miles apart. Distance means I probably only need to go up 2 feet to have my hand 'over' his head. My hand is now 2 feet up compared to his 10 foot high head. How can he possibly need to be looking 'up' to see my hand?

This entire thing is coming back to the theodolite, and the FE requirement that the dip angle doesn't exist. Despite every instrument we have telling us it does. The ONLY thing that claims there isn't one, is EnaG/the human eye, and we have (presently) only the first source to corroborate the second claim. If the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, the entirety of FE perspective is thrown out I think. Anyone on the coast able to attempt to falsify the Theodolite experiment? If a dip angle can be proven to exist, Tom's leg to stand on is thrown out, and perspective cannot function in the way FE needs it to.

But you need to remember, just as Zetetic science is proven wrong in something, does not mean that it gives that theory up, it only means that it will pursue means to correct it that correlate to the main theory- hence only making the the original theory stronger with updated and new theory.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: xenotolerance on December 20, 2017, 07:22:42 PM
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?
So, looking over this again might be missing the 'horizon' bit. But not sure how that makes a difference. Place us 3 miles apart. Distance means I probably only need to go up 2 feet to have my hand 'over' his head. My hand is now 2 feet up compared to his 10 foot high head. How can he possibly need to be looking 'up' to see my hand?

This entire thing is coming back to the theodolite, and the FE requirement that the dip angle doesn't exist. Despite every instrument we have telling us it does. The ONLY thing that claims there isn't one, is EnaG/the human eye, and we have (presently) only the first source to corroborate the second claim. If the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, the entirety of FE perspective is thrown out I think. Anyone on the coast able to attempt to falsify the Theodolite experiment? If a dip angle can be proven to exist, Tom's leg to stand on is thrown out, and perspective cannot function in the way FE needs it to.

But you need to remember, just as Zetetic science is proven wrong in something, does not mean that it gives that theory up, it only means that it will pursue means to correct it that correlate to the main theory- hence only making the the original theory stronger with updated and new theory.

you're describing a confirmation bias machine - the 'main theory' that the Earth is flat fails to predict basically everything that can be observed about the shape of the Earth, but it is never given up. each argument against it has an ad hoc rationalization for why it actually does work shut up, and these are all shit as well, but nothing is ever allowed to touch the 'original theory.'

Tom's explanation of 'band of darkness' is shit, doesn't explain the picture at all, and on top of everything else makes no sense. It's an attempt to rationalize a photo that cleanly shows that the Earth is round into a theory that says it is flat, which it is not, so the rationalization is wrong. Proving the rationalization wrong makes the main theory stronger? That's the backfire effect (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect) in action, I guess.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Havonii on December 20, 2017, 07:35:19 PM
Quote
you're describing a confirmation bias machine - the 'main theory' that the Earth is flat fails to predict basically everything that can be observed about the shape of the Earth, but it is never given up. each argument against it has an ad hoc rationalization for why it actually does work shut up, and these are all shit as well, but nothing is ever allowed to touch the 'original theory.'

Tom's explanation of 'band of darkness' is shit, doesn't explain the picture at all, and on top of everything else makes no sense. It's an attempt to rationalize a photo that cleanly shows that the Earth is round into a theory that says it is flat, which it is not, so the rationalization is wrong. Proving the rationalization wrong makes the main theory stronger? That's the backfire effect in action, I guess.

Exactly, the irrational theory and philosophical reasoning for the Flat Earth rhetoric, are why their side is so persistent and unfairly weighed against proper communication  and evidence based explanation.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Haws on December 20, 2017, 08:37:52 PM
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?
So, looking over this again might be missing the 'horizon' bit. But not sure how that makes a difference. Place us 3 miles apart. Distance means I probably only need to go up 2 feet to have my hand 'over' his head. My hand is now 2 feet up compared to his 10 foot high head. How can he possibly need to be looking 'up' to see my hand?

This entire thing is coming back to the theodolite, and the FE requirement that the dip angle doesn't exist. Despite every instrument we have telling us it does. The ONLY thing that claims there isn't one, is EnaG/the human eye, and we have (presently) only the first source to corroborate the second claim. If the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, the entirety of FE perspective is thrown out I think. Anyone on the coast able to attempt to falsify the Theodolite experiment? If a dip angle can be proven to exist, Tom's leg to stand on is thrown out, and perspective cannot function in the way FE needs it to.

But you need to remember, just as Zetetic science is proven wrong in something, does not mean that it gives that theory up, it only means that it will pursue means to correct it that correlate to the main theory- hence only making the the original theory stronger with updated and new theory.

Well put. And it's important to clarify that I, for one, am not here for TB or any other Flat Earther. I am here for the highly suggestible newcomers who need well-reasoned refutations of the FES concoctions.

You are sitting on your porch, watching a plane fly into the distance. The plane is at an altitude of 5,000 feet at all times. Your porch has a 3.5 foot high fence/deck railing along its perimeter. Your house is located just a little above sea level, looking into a flat horizon. As you sit you can see a bright sky above and you can see the horizon below the top level of your deck railing and between the slits.

It is possible for the receding plane to start off overhead, and as time progresses, eventually appear below the top of the 3.5 foot high deck railing as it approaches the horizon. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

This example above should show how silly the question is; and how the result is clearly due to perspective. You may as well be curious how you can raise your hands above the level of any clouds you see in the distance and be lost in wonder how your 5 foot tall hands can seem to get above clouds which are thousands of feet high in the distance, because this scenario would be as equally confounding, based on your understanding of the world.

TB, I want to go back to this important post of yours. I have a few questions:

1. Which question are you saying is silly?
2. The railing is higher than your eyes, as implied by your saying "you can see the horizon below" it?

Before you answer, I can confirm that any object whatsoever that goes far enough away will be seen below the railing. Even the entire universe, if seen far enough away, would be below that railing if the railing is "above" (toward your forehead from) your eye level. This is due to the contrived positions of your eyes and the railing and the shrinking angle of view that is occupied by receding objects. It's not due to any actual shrinking or deflection of those objects or your line of sight. Do we agree or disagree?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 03, 2018, 11:39:20 PM
As we have discussed in this thread, the sunset creates a band of darkness which originates from the horizon. If the sun is at the horizon at sea level in that picture, it is looking up at the mountain in the foreground, and therefore a shadow is created.

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.
Dude. Seriously. That level of logic is about the same as me saying "When I close my eyes I can't see anything, therefore nothing can see me and I have thus become invisible".
You are basically claiming that if an object has a shadow cast by a light source then changing your perspective changes the angle of the shadow. That really isn't how shadows work.
The light source is PHYSICALLY somewhere. The object is PHYSICALLY somewhere. The shadow is cast because the photons from the PHYSICAL light source hit the PHYSICAL object at a certain angle. That angle depends on the physical relationship between the objects, not your perspective.
I did an experiment, so you don't have to. I suspended a Rubik's Cube from the ceiling and used a lamp as the light source. Here's the first photo.

(https://image.ibb.co/hQN86b/Perspective2.jpg)

The light source is physically above the cube so the top face of it is illuminated, as you would expect.
I then moved so that my perspective changed, here the light source now appears, from my new perspective to be UNDER the Rubik's Cube.
But guess what? The underside of the cube is not lit up.

(https://image.ibb.co/kQSEew/Perspective1.jpg)

Why? Because the physical objects have stayed where they are. The only way a shadow can be cast upwards if light travels in straight lines is for the light source (in this debate the sun) is PHYSICALLY below the other object (the mountain or clouds).

Quote
You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.
That seems extremely unlikely.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: xenotolerance on January 03, 2018, 11:45:25 PM
I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 04, 2018, 09:46:11 AM
I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.
I am looking forward to the flat earth response to my post above although I suspect I won't get one.
And it should be noted that I haven't proved above that the earth is a globe, I have simply proved that for photos like this to occur:

(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)

Then:
EITHER, the sun has to be PHYSICALLY below the mountain
OR the light has to bend in some way so it appears to be.

One possible explanation for this of course is that light does travel in straight lines and the earth is a rotating globe.
But it doesn't rule out a flat earth. It just means that if light travels in straight lines then the sun cannot simply be circling above a flat earth. If it did then shadows could not be cast like this.

If they are going to cling to a flat earth model then they are going to have to rethink their circling sun or come up with some way for light to bend to explain photos like this.
I look forward to my Nobel (Ig Nobel?) Prize for contributions to Flat Earth...what I will charitably call "Physics".
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: DSC on January 04, 2018, 10:35:03 AM
With a 3000 mile high sun, no. No they don't. The color is completely irrelevant anyway. The light is hitting the clouds from underneath. You can clearly see that upon clouds in various positions to the left and right of the image where the underside is lit up, but the top is still dark. This is visible up towards the top of the image as well. How does this happen on a FE? You have to have bendy light on a FE, or this can't happen.

The sun is in a higher position in the sky when you are at a higher altitude vs when you are at a lower altitude. It is for this reason that you can rise the sun up from the horizon just after sunset by rapidly increasing your altitude.

An object at a higher altitude will be lit at a different angle than a lower altitude. Therefore, if the rays are hitting lower clouds differently than higher clouds they will be lit differently.


are you saying that the sun changes it's altitude according to where the observer is physically located? Hogwash. You really should give up mate. There is a mountain of evidence to prove our earth is round, and broken non relatable theories that are engaged or ignored depending on what evidence you are attempting to disprove.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: ScienceFirst on January 06, 2018, 07:45:42 AM
Then demonstrate how it is possible for them to be lit from the side, when the sun is at 3000 miles and the clouds at most 10 miles.

It would be for the same reason why a receding airplane can descend into the horizon, despite being 5,000 feet in the air at all times.

Tom,

In order for the clouds to be lit from underneath, the sun has to be a lower altitude than the clouds.

The highest cloud altitudes are around 45,000 feet, less than 10 miles.

Please demonstrate how it is at all possible that a light source that is 3000 miles above a flat earth can light clouds that are 10 miles above it from underneath.

Where has it been shown that the clouds are being lit from underneath? I say that they are being lit from the side at those low altitudes and that is what causes the color change.
Are you just blind? The color change isn't even in discussion here. It's the fact the light of the sun is only showing up on the undersides of the clouds. The tops are completely unlit, and if it was just the sides of the clouds being lit, the vast majority of them in the picture I posted would have no sun shining upon them? Look at the picture Tom. Look at how the clouds are being lit on their bottoms. Not their tops, not their sides. Their bottoms. This cannot happen on a FE, because the sun is never below them. This is disregarding the hogwash about 'the clouds have a different angle on the sun' that is completely irrelevant when we're talking a 3000 mile high sun as compared to moving less than 5 miles into the sky. But sure, tell us how 'perspective' works in that regard, hmm? Because your perspective appears to simply be filler so you can say lines of sight exactly mimic what we would see on a RE. So convenient.

I don't know what you are talking about. It appears as if the higher grey clouds are being lit from above somewhere. If all of the light were coming from the bottom the top of those clouds should be dark. However, they are not dark.

This is a proof against your idea that all of the light is shining upwards from the bottom.

It cannot be argued that the top grey clouds are illuminated by the sky, either, since we see that there are areas of darkness and shadow in those top grey clouds; they are not universally lit by sky reflection.

Clouds are not solid. The tops do not have to be dark.
Clouds are droplets of water! Unless FE theories have some other unreasonable explanation for what clouds are too, the pictures are very clearly showing that clouds are lit from the bottom, with some passing through the top because they are thinner clouds.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: ScienceFirst on January 06, 2018, 07:50:30 AM
I'm guessing there will not be any more FE replies to this post! They usually stop replying once their arguments run dry or have been counter-argued by multiple people! Which is annoying because I'm really curious as to what the response to the above posts will be (and do not tell me to read ENaG- it will not have the responses to these questions! This is a discussion, not a lecture.)
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 06, 2018, 09:29:48 AM
I'm guessing there will not be any more FE replies to this post! They usually stop replying once their arguments run dry or have been counter-argued by multiple people! Which is annoying because I'm really curious as to what the response to the above posts will be (and do not tell me to read ENaG- it will not have the responses to these questions! This is a discussion, not a lecture.)
Yep, they always run away once they're definitively shown to be wrong. If Tom can provide some photos or models to demonstrate his ideas on perspective or show where I'm going wrong above then I'd like to see them. But he can't. So he ignores it. I called him out on that in another thread and he said "The ratio of RE to FE on here are 100 to 1, I can't reply to everyone". On a busier forum that would be a reasonable response but there really aren't many threads on here, if he was really interested in debate and had a coherent flat earth model which could really answer these questions then he would do so. But he doesn't. So he can't. But neither does he admit he is wrong.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: JohnAdams1145 on January 08, 2018, 07:45:16 AM
I should point out that four angular measurements (I think; my geometry is rusty; always make more measurements if you're unsure) from points with known distances apart simultaneously conducted should instantly disprove the notion that the Sun is 32 miles in diameter/radius and/or that it is 3000 miles away. Of course, the math is rather complicated, and FE people love to muddy the waters by saying the optics is flawed (hint: invoke atmospheric distortion) when it supports the RE argument.

I wrote something about why the Sun cannot be 32 miles wide because of its energy budget at https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8380.0

EDIT: I suggest we pressure the FE people to give an explanation for this thread by referring to it later on. They've been backed into an inescapable corner, and it would be a disgrace to let them off this one, as in the "the distance from New York to Paris is unknown" thread.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2018, 09:42:49 AM
Don't you only need 2 measurements? If they're from a known distance apart then you've got your base of the triangle and the angles, trig should do the rest.
Obviously more measurements would corroborate and be helpful.

There is a growing list of debates I notice they've just stopped contributing to when they've been clearly shown to be wrong. They don't seem very serious about developing a flat earth model which actually works and can explain observations.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on January 08, 2018, 01:57:26 PM
Don't you only need 2 measurements? If they're from a known distance apart then you've got your base of the triangle and the angles, trig should do the rest.
Obviously more measurements would corroborate and be helpful.

There is a growing list of debates I notice they've just stopped contributing to when they've been clearly shown to be wrong. They don't seem very serious about developing a flat earth model which actually works and can explain observations.
You want 3 points. At 3 points you will show that both there is no 'standard' height of the sun, as well as you can thus show that there can't be a 'standard' size of the sun without introducing a fudge factor. 2 points (as Eratosthenes uses) isn't 100% definitive. But once you add that third point, the sun's necessary height will vary, potentially on the order of a thousand miles or so, depending on where your points are.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2018, 03:24:57 PM
Don't you only need 2 measurements? If they're from a known distance apart then you've got your base of the triangle and the angles, trig should do the rest.
Obviously more measurements would corroborate and be helpful.

There is a growing list of debates I notice they've just stopped contributing to when they've been clearly shown to be wrong. They don't seem very serious about developing a flat earth model which actually works and can explain observations.
You want 3 points. At 3 points you will show that both there is no 'standard' height of the sun, as well as you can thus show that there can't be a 'standard' size of the sun without introducing a fudge factor. 2 points (as Eratosthenes uses) isn't 100% definitive. But once you add that third point, the sun's necessary height will vary, potentially on the order of a thousand miles or so, depending on where your points are.
Fair enough. I guess there's a clue in the word triangulate.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: JohnAdams1145 on January 10, 2018, 05:35:52 AM
I believe that we have conclusively shown that the Earth is round. However, there has been a notable lack of FE response (esp by Tom Bishop) to this thread. On the other hand, he is busy debating Round Earth people on whether 2 + 2 is always equal to 4 (if you take the symbol 2 to represent what everyone knows it means and 4 in a similar way, then yes, 2+2 is always equal to 4).

This leads me to believe that his excuse that he doesn't have time to debate people is false. He's just simply cherry-picking things he can muddy the waters with to give the appearance of an unfinished debate. If FE theory accounted for all of the stuff we've posted here, he wouldn't have to spend time thinking about garbage ways to patch up the theory.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 10, 2018, 10:13:14 AM
Well, quite. This is why I question how serious Tom and the society are about developing a flat earth theory which actually works because the current one patently doesn't and when that is repeatedly demonstrated to them they leave the debate.
What are these forums for if not to debate this stuff and change the model as needed when flaws in it are demonstrated?

Their two options are either to concede that the earth is a globe or change their current flat earth model so it actually works.
The test of a good model is whether it explains observations and whether it can predict future events. Their current model can do neither.

As I said, my photos above do NOT prove a spherical earth, they simply prove that if light travels in straight lines (as Tom agrees it does) then for clouds to be lit from below then the sun must be PHYSICALLY below the level of the clouds. Tom talks about a row of street lamps and how as they recede to the distance they may appear to be below eye level:

Quote
If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible to raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand. The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

This is the logic of a child who thinks that the cows in the distant field are tiny and the ones close up are much bigger. That is not how the real world works. I could indeed look at a row of lamp-posts like this

(https://image.ibb.co/kCR61m/lampposts.jpg)

And raise my hand so that from my perspective it appears as though my hand is above the level of the furthest lamp.
In real life of course this is how me and the lampposts are oriented. This is an artist's impression (unfortunately I was the artist) what someone looking at me and the lamp-posts from the side would see

(https://image.ibb.co/bVgpMm/Lamp_Posts2.jpg)

I have drawn a line from the furthest lamp source to me. Which direction is it? Is the suggestion that the observer sees the shadow angling down and I would see the shadow angling up because of our different perspectives? That is absolutely not how shadows work, a shadow is cast because the photons from the physical light source hit the physical object at a certain angle. That angle depends on our physical positions in relation to one another.

To think of it another way, if Tom was sitting at the level of the light bulb of the furthest lamp and he wanted to shoot me for proving him wrong, which direction would he have to aim in, up or down? And would the answer change if I lift my hands in surrender so that from my perspective my hands were above his level?

So. In order for clouds to be lit from below and the sun to cast shadows angled upwards either:
1) The sun is PHYSICALLY below the level of the clouds
2) The light is bending somehow so it appears to be.

Pick one. But those really are the only two possibilities. There is no way a sun 3,000 miles high and 6,000 miles away can cast shadows like this otherwise.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Rounder on January 10, 2018, 01:28:47 PM
Don't you only need 2 measurements? If they're from a known distance apart then you've got your base of the triangle and the angles, trig should do the rest.
Obviously more measurements would corroborate and be helpful.

There is a growing list of debates I notice they've just stopped contributing to when they've been clearly shown to be wrong. They don't seem very serious about developing a flat earth model which actually works and can explain observations.
You want 3 points. At 3 points you will show that both there is no 'standard' height of the sun, as well as you can thus show that there can't be a 'standard' size of the sun without introducing a fudge factor. 2 points (as Eratosthenes uses) isn't 100% definitive. But once you add that third point, the sun's necessary height will vary, potentially on the order of a thousand miles or so, depending on where your points are.

Not only the height, but the location north to south as well.  Here, I've plotted the sunward vectors for three cities using values contributed by the artist formerly known as Intikam:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/oHBIS4EKv-zvTY0sl4l8GJc5mDunM3FdRs85LDRWYiRyO-RixGKx7JnoxRd6wVbstmqrT6tQWQnJ9_CqnxBj8vC1mDlUUBdPqGaM-S7keoo37xNA5O-ju-8aiYEKI1z8SjtaOL8EqtS2f9eH_zFamnzOgy2QnTPpDvR46JdjwDv_GTlewfxoezee1gNiZdGU5c55BCY5mFIeLflpF89VlTNcp4vVMmPjAdbqvoBkB3RiBjjaB_ZQM5l_8UrimB8UVOuLg6s19LClSQFooS1Gr5TLox_cbie-C_YUnQYfYwpA1-LsNDzkdrWrz4-YkXNJXw9mbbd4fIZ4JwnGnA4BT4h363fIPqkZwCUxlDstqzinY1YWSLEWB8LtUI8YbUJRCSzE-E9C1WfuucWSSQgD9koyi_fZKhCaxZbMUKNtPF9hZUnwHiLHG0UpVeSTZ0WJy8dohB9zimsVzzsJGka2O6NCwNNPODlJFW3L1Uc4tfNyPXTFOsrKPt3ClZTjDTmhR1hqyighh60TW4EhFimUJFki2eP3mIwsQr-Is-B0xPq5f9tZGzxQh7Ww_GeU9g1lqUZ7ynza02K5AQEq2q3hLcNyjSa4URvZm8AvN4pYmBQHd5FBiS1DfvHW4YRSpC_TP3CVll61hHfF5jq44eh_cIWIv5dF-pPE_SVG=w1680-h860-no)

All of this put together is pretty convincing.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Ratboy on January 10, 2018, 07:46:29 PM
If you include my observation of the noonday sun on Jan 22 being slightly below me when I was on a hill in the Arctic, this puts the sun 20 miles underground at Buenos Aires.   
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2018, 01:26:23 PM
As we have discussed in this thread, the sunset creates a band of darkness which originates from the horizon. If the sun is at the horizon at sea level in that picture, it is looking up at the mountain in the foreground, and therefore a shadow is created.

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.
Dude. Seriously. That level of logic is about the same as me saying "When I close my eyes I can't see anything, therefore nothing can see me and I have thus become invisible".
You are basically claiming that if an object has a shadow cast by a light source then changing your perspective changes the angle of the shadow. That really isn't how shadows work.
The light source is PHYSICALLY somewhere. The object is PHYSICALLY somewhere. The shadow is cast because the photons from the PHYSICAL light source hit the PHYSICAL object at a certain angle. That angle depends on the physical relationship between the objects, not your perspective.
I did an experiment, so you don't have to. I suspended a Rubik's Cube from the ceiling and used a lamp as the light source. Here's the first photo.

(https://image.ibb.co/hQN86b/Perspective2.jpg)

The light source is physically above the cube so the top face of it is illuminated, as you would expect.
I then moved so that my perspective changed, here the light source now appears, from my new perspective to be UNDER the Rubik's Cube.
But guess what? The underside of the cube is not lit up.

(https://image.ibb.co/kQSEew/Perspective1.jpg)

Why? Because the physical objects have stayed where they are. The only way a shadow can be cast upwards if light travels in straight lines is for the light source (in this debate the sun) is PHYSICALLY below the other object (the mountain or clouds).

Quote
You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.
That seems extremely unlikely.

The error in your experiment is that you just put your camera below the cube. The cube is not seeing the light source parallel to it, as would be possible if it were distant enough. The cube and the light source would become eye level to each other with long distance perspective. If the light were at the horizon the cube would see it at 90 degrees, and would be lit from its side rather than from the top, just as your face is lit from the side and not from the top during sunset.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2018, 02:08:17 PM
I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.
I am looking forward to the flat earth response to my post above although I suspect I won't get one.
And it should be noted that I haven't proved above that the earth is a globe, I have simply proved that for photos like this to occur:

(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)

Then:
EITHER, the sun has to be PHYSICALLY below the mountain
OR the light has to bend in some way so it appears to be.

One possible explanation for this of course is that light does travel in straight lines and the earth is a rotating globe.
But it doesn't rule out a flat earth. It just means that if light travels in straight lines then the sun cannot simply be circling above a flat earth. If it did then shadows could not be cast like this.

If they are going to cling to a flat earth model then they are going to have to rethink their circling sun or come up with some way for light to bend to explain photos like this.
I look forward to my Nobel (Ig Nobel?) Prize for contributions to Flat Earth...what I will charitably call "Physics".

Didn't we discuss this already? The mountain is seeing the sun at its horizon. The horizon is at 90 degrees. The sun is illuminating the mountain from the side.

A spotlight or bright flashlight illuminating your body from a 90 degree angle level with you would create a large outwardly growing shadow, correct? That is what is happening here.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 27, 2018, 07:57:41 PM
The error in your experiment is that you just put your camera below the cube. The cube is not seeing the light source parallel to it, as would be possible if it were distant enough. The cube and the light source would become eye level to each other with long distance perspective. If the light were at the horizon the cube would see it at 90 degrees, and would be lit from its side rather than from the top, just as your face is lit from the side and not from the top during sunset.
OK. Thank you for your response. Your mistake is that cubes and mountains can't see. I know you're using the term metaphorically but perspective is NOT a factor in how shadows are cast.

You said:

Quote
If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible to raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand. The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

That just isn't how things work in real life. This is what an observer would see:

(https://image.ibb.co/bVgpMm/Lamp_Posts2.jpg)

So while yes, I could raise my hand and it would look from my perspective as though my hand was above the far lamp post, the lamp post light is still physically above the level of my hand. You can extend that row of lamp-posts as far as you like, all that would change is the angle which would become shallower but the shadow would always be angled downwards. The only way a shadow can be cast upwards is if the light source is physically below the level of the object which the shadow is cast of.

So, coming back to the sun and the mountain, I drew this very rough diagram. To even show them on the same scale I have imagined a mountain 1000 miles high.
The sun is 3000 miles high in your model, right?
I've shown the angle of the shadow if the sun is 4000 or 9000 miles away horizontally. From what I understand it can never actually be much further than that in daylight.
You can see that all that changes is the angle of the shadow:

(https://image.ibb.co/kTJrdb/IMG_7647.jpg)

What can never happen in your model are shadows being cast upwards. What is also not possible are the long shadows you get at sunrise or sunset:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7014/6538971865_a892054a08_b.jpg)

The physical angle between the sun and the people would never be shallow enough to cause that.
So, the earth might well be flat BUT the sun cannot be 3000 miles above it at sunrise at sunset, the angle of the shadows proves that.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Macarios on January 27, 2018, 08:03:40 PM
I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.
I am looking forward to the flat earth response to my post above although I suspect I won't get one.
And it should be noted that I haven't proved above that the earth is a globe, I have simply proved that for photos like this to occur:

(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)

Then:
EITHER, the sun has to be PHYSICALLY below the mountain
OR the light has to bend in some way so it appears to be.

One possible explanation for this of course is that light does travel in straight lines and the earth is a rotating globe.
But it doesn't rule out a flat earth. It just means that if light travels in straight lines then the sun cannot simply be circling above a flat earth. If it did then shadows could not be cast like this.

If they are going to cling to a flat earth model then they are going to have to rethink their circling sun or come up with some way for light to bend to explain photos like this.
I look forward to my Nobel (Ig Nobel?) Prize for contributions to Flat Earth...what I will charitably call "Physics".

Didn't we discuss this already? The mountain is seeing the sun at its horizon. The horizon is at 90 degrees. The sun is illuminating the mountain from the side.

A spotlight or bright flashlight illuminating your body from a 90 degree angle level with you would create a large outwardly growing shadow, correct? That is what is happening here.

Yes, this was discussed before.
And someone is every time trying to "explain" that "mountain gets sunlight at 90 degrees from Sun that is 3000 miles higher (while only 6000 miles farther)".
You are smarter than 90% of the people here.
Calculate the angle yourself.

And someone is always trying to skip to tell on what is shadow of the mountain cast.
(If it is on "thin air", then why we see only shadow of the top of the mountain?)
If "shadow of the mountain goes downwards", then where is the shadow of the clouds?

Blurring the explanation and "pushing it under the carpet" every time, will just "spill it back for every carpet cleaning".
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2018, 10:03:15 PM
I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.
I am looking forward to the flat earth response to my post above although I suspect I won't get one.
And it should be noted that I haven't proved above that the earth is a globe, I have simply proved that for photos like this to occur:

(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)

Then:
EITHER, the sun has to be PHYSICALLY below the mountain
OR the light has to bend in some way so it appears to be.

One possible explanation for this of course is that light does travel in straight lines and the earth is a rotating globe.
But it doesn't rule out a flat earth. It just means that if light travels in straight lines then the sun cannot simply be circling above a flat earth. If it did then shadows could not be cast like this.

If they are going to cling to a flat earth model then they are going to have to rethink their circling sun or come up with some way for light to bend to explain photos like this.
I look forward to my Nobel (Ig Nobel?) Prize for contributions to Flat Earth...what I will charitably call "Physics".

Didn't we discuss this already? The mountain is seeing the sun at its horizon. The horizon is at 90 degrees. The sun is illuminating the mountain from the side.

A spotlight or bright flashlight illuminating your body from a 90 degree angle level with you would create a large outwardly growing shadow, correct? That is what is happening here.

Yes, this was discussed before.
And someone is every time trying to "explain" that "mountain gets sunlight at 90 degrees from Sun that is 3000 miles higher (while only 6000 miles farther)".
You are smarter than 90% of the people here.
Calculate the angle yourself.

And someone is always trying to skip to tell on what is shadow of the mountain cast.
(If it is on "thin air", then why we see only shadow of the top of the mountain?)
If "shadow of the mountain goes downwards", then where is the shadow of the clouds?

Blurring the explanation and "pushing it under the carpet" every time, will just "spill it back for every carpet cleaning".

That is more of an argument that the sun cannot make it to the horizon. This is answered in Earth Not a Globe and in the following Youtube video by p-brane, who basically comes up with the same explanation that Rowbotham did and illustrates it for us.

https://youtu.be/AfgbqFyiisQ
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: inquisitive on January 27, 2018, 10:28:28 PM
Tom - this, and you, ignore what is seen and measured from multiple locations at the same time.

Strange that nobody else agrees with you here.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 27, 2018, 10:43:27 PM
p-brane. An apt name...
Quite simply, he and Rowbowtham are wrong about perspective. And here's why. Think about how you see things. Rays from a light source reflect off an object and in to your eye.
So if I am on a flat plane and so is someone/something else then there is no reason I shouldn't be able to see them because there will always be a clear line of sight between me and the other person/object:

(https://image.ibb.co/g2saWm/4.jpg)

The only limiting factors are clarity of the atmosphere and how good my eyes are. There will come a point where I can no longer see the person simply because the resolution of my eyes isn't good enough - if you think about it, the further apart the two people are above the smaller the angle of the rays at my eye and therefore the smaller the image on my retina. There will come a point where I am no longer able to see them, when that happens I could use a telescope and they would become visible again, if the atmospheric conditions allow.

If a person is walking away from me and going over a hill though, THEN the person would sink below the horizon because the curve of the hill would physically stop the rays of light getting to me:

(https://image.ibb.co/jPDrnR/5.jpg)

The further away they go away from me on a circle (or, in 3D a sphere), the less I can see of them. In the above I only see their head because a ray of light from the person's feet to my eyes is blocked by the curve, there is no straight line between the lower part of the person and my eye that light can travel.

As I said above, a shadow is cast because the photons are physically blocked by the object. The angle and length of the shadow depend on the PHYSICAL relationship between the positions of the light source and object. So long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is physically on the horizon so either the light is bending or the sun is disappearing below the curve of the earth. Pick one. But those are the only two explanations which can work.

If you think the perspective argument holds any water then build a basic scale model to show how this would work. I have seen YouTube videos where someone shows with a coin how a sun could "set" on a flat earth using a coin and a table but
a) Those videos show the coin ON the table, not above it and
b) To produce the effect the camera is held at what in real life would be below ground level.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Macarios on January 27, 2018, 11:53:23 PM
P-brane's video has several flaws.
Let me tell you first about his "without taking observer into account".
I already mentoned sextant and its low price.
(There is even cheaper version that can be made from school protractor, thread, and small hanging object.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unSnBkSZkK4

It shows you that angles are measured DIRECTLY FROM THE OBSERVER.
How else you measure those "theta1" and "theta2" here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun) ?


Next, we do know, or can measure by ourselves angular diameter of the Sun without glare blur around it.
Sun filter will eliminate glare and we will see just the Sun itself.
Sun filter can be simple welding glass or welding mask from Lowe's.
Then measure with caliper.
In P-brane's video it is correctly shown as constant, which ruined his perspective.
Constant Sun covers at close distance just one perspective line, and far away covers 5 perspective lines.
Either lines don't show perspective well, or Sun doesn't follow perspective, which means lines mean nothing.

Next, the speed of the Sun across the sky doesn't depend on observer.
But what observer sees depends on shape of Sun's trajectory.
Sun DOES have constant angular speed across the Earth, traveling around Northern Hub 15 degrees per hour.
Sun also travels 15 degrees per hour in observer's view.
If observer is at Equator Sun can not revolve simultaneously around two points more than revolving radius apart.

If Sun for equinox travels 1670 km/h above equator, it will above equatorial observer at noon travel 15 degrees per hour and at 3 pm 10.5 degrees per hour and at 4:30 pm 7.5 degrees per hour.
Measured directly from observer. Same perspective that reduces apparent height of the sun also reduces traveling segments of Sun's path.

At 7:00 he shows vertical plane in perspective where it is "going away", and green positions of Sun follow,
and another vertical plane left-to right directly in front of us, followed by orange Su positions under some angle relative to previous "going away" plane in perspective.
Projecting those two onto screen will bring them together, but he acts like they are together in 3D in reality.

There's more.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on January 29, 2018, 12:30:06 PM
So, a quick drawing to dispel this “perspective” nonsense (cos’ Tom’s dun seen another video).

I think it has been worked out that the flat earth is some 25000 miles in diameter, when drawing this I made the mistake of clicking radius instead of diameter, but I went with it, so the attached illustration has the world twice as big (and still the sun doesn’t set).

The sun is 32 units in diameter, 2500 high and the parallel lines that give the perspective are that high and half way and run out to level with the edge, but on perspective view (top right), guess what, when we put the camera out to one edge and look towards the other the lines don’t reach the horizon (on an earth twice as big).
Remembering that it's the top three lines we are looking at, the others are there for "perspective".


(https://i.imgur.com/rYlXId9.png)



Now if we could just get his carers to taser him if he goes on U-tube.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 29, 2018, 01:12:00 PM
Tom will dismiss that because it is a simulation. My challenge would be for him or some other flat earther to build a rudimentary scale model which represents the flat earth and the sun's position at what would be sunset and demonstrate that the sun would set and the shadows would be long at that sunset.
The only way for the long shadows we see at sunset to occur is if the sun is PHYSICALLY on the horizon.
You can demonstrate that with an object and a torch. Turn all the lights off, place the torch to scale roughly where the sun would be and observe the shadows.
If the sun is about 3,000 miles high and 6,000 miles away horizontally then the shadows cannot possibly be more than twice as long as the object is high.
So 1 meter high and 2 meters across would be the same - the angle would be the same so the shadow would be the same.
Either the light is bending somehow (Tom has stated it does not) or the sun is physically on the horizon.
Perspective doesn't cut it because shadow angle and length depends on the PHYSICAL relationship between light source and object, not anyone's perspective.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on January 29, 2018, 01:38:31 PM
As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun. I have no clue how he can think that on flat Earth, but it just goes to show that the amount of mental acrobatics one needs to perform to believe the Earth is flat. It is clear that the Sun can't be above an object and directly cast a shadow upwards, yet he persists.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on January 29, 2018, 02:18:00 PM
As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun. I have no clue how he can think that on flat Earth, but it just goes to show that the amount of mental acrobatics one needs to perform to believe the Earth is flat. It is clear that the Sun can't be above an object and directly cast a shadow upwards, yet he persists.
This is your problem with anything here. If I'm misrepresenting it I hope he corrects me, but from what I have gathered Tom essentially believes perspective to be a natural law of some form. All objects are subject to the effects of it. Which I don't honestly understand to a greater degree than it basically mimics what one would expect to see if the Earth were actually round. I'm certain there's more to it, but the word 'perspective' means something entirely different in the FE hypothesis as compared to normal everyday use.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 29, 2018, 02:47:09 PM
As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun.

It's interesting that Tom is actually correct about this. Two pieces of wrong thinking:
1) That the sun is 3000 miles above a flat earth and
2) That objects "see" perspective
Have cancelled themselves out to lead him to the correct conclusion, even if he got there for the wrong reasons.
I'm still amused at him saying that if you see a row of lampposts then you can raise your hand so that from your persepctive your hand is above the level of a distance lamp and thus:

Quote
The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

My emphasis. Meanwhile, in the real world...

(https://image.ibb.co/bVgpMm/Lamp_Posts2.jpg)

I don't think I have ever seen Tom budge an inch in any of these debates no matter how wrong he is shown.
Meanwhlie he clings to Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent...
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: StinkyOne on January 29, 2018, 03:55:50 PM
As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun.

It's interesting that Tom is actually correct about this. Two pieces of wrong thinking:
1) That the sun is 3000 miles above a flat earth and
2) That objects "see" perspective
Have cancelled themselves out to lead him to the correct conclusion, even if he got there for the wrong reasons.
I'm still amused at him saying that if you see a row of lampposts then you can raise your hand so that from your persepctive your hand is above the level of a distance lamp and thus:

Quote
The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

My emphasis. Meanwhile, in the real world...

(https://image.ibb.co/bVgpMm/Lamp_Posts2.jpg)

I don't think I have ever seen Tom budge an inch in any of these debates no matter how wrong he is shown.
Meanwhlie he clings to Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent...

Yes, definitely correct on a round Earth. It is a satisfying bit of irony. I've tried to engage him on it a few times, but he refuses to revisit that comment.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2018, 05:31:19 PM
As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun.

It's interesting that Tom is actually correct about this. Two pieces of wrong thinking:
1) That the sun is 3000 miles above a flat earth and
2) That objects "see" perspective
Have cancelled themselves out to lead him to the correct conclusion, even if he got there for the wrong reasons.
I'm still amused at him saying that if you see a row of lampposts then you can raise your hand so that from your persepctive your hand is above the level of a distance lamp and thus:

Quote
The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

My emphasis. Meanwhile, in the real world...

(https://image.ibb.co/bVgpMm/Lamp_Posts2.jpg)

I don't think I have ever seen Tom budge an inch in any of these debates no matter how wrong he is shown.
Meanwhlie he clings to Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent...

That side view scene does not properly incorporate perspective. See the p-brane video that talks about those kind of scenes.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on January 29, 2018, 08:30:40 PM
Mine does Tom, see further up.

The perspective lines are truncated at the edge of a world twice the size it should be but none of the lines he talks about dip below the horizon.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 29, 2018, 10:06:43 PM
That side view scene does not properly incorporate perspective. See the p-brane video that talks about those kind of scenes.
Well, it does "properly" incorporate perspective in that it doesn't incorporate it at all. Because it doesn't need to. My diagram shows how silly your claim is. The person has moved their hand so it looks from their perspective as if the distant light is below the level of their hand. But in real life lamps are taller than people so the shadow is still angled downwards.

I have watched the video.
p-brane is wrong about perspective.
Rowbotham is wrong about perspective.
You are wrong about perspective.

Think about how a shadow is cast. Photons from a light source hit an object. The angle of the shadow depends on the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and the object.
Long shadows at sunset prove the sun is physically on the horizon. As I said you can prove this with an object and a torch in a dark room. Put the object on the floor and do an experiment. See if there is any other way of casting long shadows other than putting the torch near floor level. A sun 3000 miles high and 6000 miles away horizontally simply cannot do that.

To add:

The crazy claim that:

Quote
The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand. The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

From the person in my excellent diagram's perspective the lamp does look like it is above his hand.
From the person looking from the side's perspective - whose point of view I have drawn - you can see that the lamp is physically above the level of the person's hand. Of course it is. Lamp posts are taller than people.

If your claim was correct then the person with his hand up would see the shadow angled upwards, the person standing at the side would see it angled downwards because of their different perspectives. How can you possibly think that is so? The shadow is angled how it is angled for both people.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Freash Boa on January 30, 2018, 03:38:36 PM
So did this thread single handedly kill all of FET? I knew it was a flimsy theory but damn
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: junker on January 30, 2018, 03:40:28 PM
So did this thread single handedly kill all of FET? I knew it was a flimsy theory but damn

Please refrain from off-topic and/or low-content posting in the upper fora.

Warned.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 01, 2018, 11:03:52 PM
Can we just get a show of hands here: how many of you agree that the fact that clouds are lit up from below totally, completely, and utterly destroys the silly FE hypothesis, and that Tom’s spooky perspective nonsense is ridiculous? Me, me, me!
Well, actually...I don't entirely agree with that.
I have explained with a diagram and proved with an experiment that for clouds to be lit from below the sun's light must be coming from below the level of the clouds so either the light is bending OR the sun is physically below the level of the clouds.
Tom dismissed my experiment because I "just moved the camera". This is true, but he is suggesting that "just moving your hand" will change the angle of the shadow from pointing downwards to upwards even if your hand is still physically below the level of the light source. I could do the experiment again by moving the object instead and so long as the object is still physically below the level of the light source you'd get the same result.
I've also suggested he do an experiment to see if he can reproduce the effect of long shadows at sunset with a light source at the angle his flat earth model claims the sun must be at during sunset.
None of this actually proves a spherical earth, but it does prove that the sun can't be where the FE model as outlined in the Wiki claims it is at sunset, unless the light is bending somehow to make it appear as if it's on the horizon. Perspective doesn't cut it.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: junker on February 01, 2018, 11:48:40 PM
Hmm, how come Tom never gets in trouble for low-content posts? He completely ignores most of the arguments against your crazy theory, and then just posts the same flawed statements over and over again. I smell a conspiracy :)

Can we just get a show of hands here: how many of you agree that the fact that clouds are lit up from below totally, completely, and utterly destroys the silly FE hypothesis, and that Tom’s spooky perspective nonsense is ridiculous? Me, me, me!


So did this thread single handedly kill all of FET? I knew it was a flimsy theory but damn

Please refrain from off-topic and/or low-content posting in the upper fora.

Warned.


If you have a moderation issue, take it S&C. This isn't the place for it. If you think a post breaks the rules, use the report button.

Warned.
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: Macarios on February 06, 2018, 02:36:30 PM
As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun.

It's interesting that Tom is actually correct about this. Two pieces of wrong thinking:
1) That the sun is 3000 miles above a flat earth and
2) That objects "see" perspective
Have cancelled themselves out to lead him to the correct conclusion, even if he got there for the wrong reasons.
I'm still amused at him saying that if you see a row of lampposts then you can raise your hand so that from your persepctive your hand is above the level of a distance lamp and thus:

Quote
The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

My emphasis. Meanwhile, in the real world...

(https://image.ibb.co/bVgpMm/Lamp_Posts2.jpg)

I don't think I have ever seen Tom budge an inch in any of these debates no matter how wrong he is shown.
Meanwhlie he clings to Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent...

That side view scene does not properly incorporate perspective. See the p-brane video that talks about those kind of scenes.

If your eyes are at 5.5 feet from the ground and that last lamp is at 20 feet from the ground, will raising your hand change their relation?
Will p-brane's version of perspective change their elevations above ground?
Title: Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
Post by: JohnAdams1145 on February 06, 2018, 09:04:27 PM
It's hard for Tom to see why his argument is wrong if you stick to small stuff like people and lampposts. Let's do a bigger one:

Tom, imagine you're standing so you can see Mount Everest like: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Mount_Everest_as_seen_from_Drukair.jpg/220px-Mount_Everest_as_seen_from_Drukair.jpg)

Now, you can certainly raise your hand higher than the peak (just block out the sky on top of it). Now those people are many thousands of feet higher than you are. Imagine yourself at the summit of Mount Everest. Do you think they would see a hand in the sky?