[Realestfake]

Hello, I’d like to discuss the appearance of the sun as we can observe it on earth. Is there a mainstream FE explanation as to why it looks the way it does? I’m referring to solar photography, not the naked eye. Currently, RE offers an explanation which is sufficient and accepted, and I and couldn’t find anything about this on the wiki.

https://twitter.com/ajamesmccarthy/status/1638648459002806272?s=46&t=i3fiuQYkeGPQI_B9p-mUYA

Could this be the texture of the “spotlight” as opposed to the accepted theory of plasma?

[Magicalus]

Look, that image isn't going to get you anywhere. Someone saying they worked on a photo for 5 days is at least enough for it to be disregarded as mostly photoshop. I say that as a Round Earther who's read quite a few threads that went down the same way.

If I were to guess as a Flat Earther, I'd say it's semi-random noise map with colors applied, which was then wrapped onto a sphere and lit juuuuuust right. 5 days is definitely enough to do all that, especially if you're skilled. As for the wispy looking things, I'd honestly just guess smoke wisps rotated and shifted around to look like funky glare/solar radiation/cosmic scary thing of the week.

Fair enough Pete. I now realize that was both a strawman and bad faith, and inappropriate.

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't see why the photo would be dismissed as fake outright, without any analysis, and it's not what happens here. I would recommend caution when a 22-post account declares themselves an expert on this forum and asks you to "dude just trust me bro" on things like this.

Additionally, Magicalus, this style of posting is not acceptable here. If your post is not a sincere discussion of the Flat Earth Theory, it does not belong in the FET board. If you want to complain about how super right you are and how stinky FE'ers are, do so in the Angry Ranting board.

That said, your question is very non-specific. You want "an explanation for why the sun looks the way it does", which honestly gives us absolutely nothing to work with.

Please explain your argument (presumably in favour of RE?), and clarify what it is you'd like to discuss.

[Realestfake]

That said, your question is very non-specific. You want "an explanation for why the sun looks the way it does", which honestly gives us absolutely nothing to work with.

Please explain your argument (presumably in favour of RE?), and clarify what it is you'd like to discuss.

Fair question. I’m going to argue under the umbrella of discussing topics that RE has a tidy explanation that FE may or may not have. Whether or not that’s something anyone wants to entertain is up to them.

I was looking for an explanation in the realm of EA that provides a possible alternate explanation to what the science world generally agrees on.

[Tom Bishop]

The image is somewhat inaccurate. The Sun is not brighter near the edges. The Sun is actually darker near the edges: A long standing mystery in Astronomy.

FE postulates that the celestial bodies we see are projections upon the atmolayer. See this page and section of the Wiki which describes the magnification of the Sun's image upon the atmolayer -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Sun_Brightness_Inconsistent

Sun Brightness Inconsistent

Additionally, it should be noted that the sun appears to be inconsistently bright. This is curious, since in the Round Earth model the sun is an object where every point from half of the spherical sun's surface is reaching the eye of the observer. One should expect to see all parts of the sun's body with equal intensity, or with increased intensity at the edges, as intensity is defined by accumulated photons, and the number of miles per square arcsecond increases in those regions.

Find a photo of a Solar Eclipse, which are often taken through a solar filter, and then modify the brightness and contrast settings in order to bring out the areas of the image which are the brightest:



Compare that to the hotspotting seen in a projector's image on a screen:



Source: Hotspotting or brightness inhomogeneity

The hotspot seen in the sun may suggest a projection upon the atmoplane. Projections, such as from a projector shining on a movie screen, tend to have hotspots in them.

Inconsistent Brightness: A Round Earth Mystery

The inconsistent brightness is a problem in RET, and it is well admitted. Astronomers find difficulty in explaining how it works to have outer layers of the sun significantly dimmer than other layers.

Astronomers had to make the surface of the sun, the photosphere, very cold—at only about 6000 degrees Kelvin, compared to the much hotter atmosphere of the sun called the Solar Corona that is about several million degrees Kelvin, which is seen as a wispy aura around the sun seen at Total Solar Eclipse or with a coronagraph; and also significantly different compared to 15 million degrees Kelvin for the Solar Core (Archive). In addition, astronomers had to make the outer cool photosphere layer transparent or semi-transparent so that the radiation from the core could pass through it to the observer.

Article: Solving the Mystery of the Sun's Hot Atmosphere:

  “ The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona -- best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses -- is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics. ”

  “ Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense! ”
                  —Dr. David H. Brooks, George Mason University

A projection of light would have the effect of inconsistent brightness, with a hot spot at the center, like the hotspot projection example.

The dark edges of the sun can also be seen in this historical reference:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun#Sun_Spherical

The Story of the Stars
New Descriptive Astronomy
Joel Dorman Steele, Ph.D.,

The Solar System p.44

  “ Spots Apparently Change Their Speed and Form as They Pass Across the Disk — A spot is seen on the eastern limb; day by day it progresses, With a gradually-increasing rapidity, until it reaches the center; it then Slowly loses its rapidity, and f‌inally disappears on the western limb. The diagram illustrates the apparent change which takes place in the form. Suppose at f‌irst the spot is of an oval shape; as it approaches the center it apparently widens and becomes circular. Having passed that point, it becomes more and more oval until it disappears. ”

[Tom Bishop]

It is interesting that the hotspot in the Solar Eclipse photo above is off-center. That appears hard to describe with the theory that the darkening is a physical property of the sun's dim layers millions of miles behind the Moon.

Under the FE projection scenario, the hotspot being off center when something near the light source interferes with it does make some sense. Consider a wall projector. If you put your hand or object near the light source of a wall projector, it is more possible to change where the hotspot is on the wall due to close range light deflection.

According to RE the phenomenon of the dimmer rim of the Sun is called Limb Darkening, and is a physical property of the sun having different temperatures at different layers:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/limb_darkening.html

Limb Darkening:

Limb darkening is the gradual decrease in brightness of the disk of the Sun or of another star as observed from its centre to its edge, or limb. This phenomenon is readily apparent in photographs of the Sun. The darkening is greatest for blue light, amounting to a drop of as much as 90 percent from the Sun's photosphere to its outer atmospheric regions. Such limb darkening occurs because the solar atmosphere increases in temperature with depth. At the centre of the solar disk, an observer sees the deepest and warmest layers that emit the most light. At the limb, only the upper, cooler layers that produce less light can be seen. Observations of solar limb darkening are used to determine the temperature structure of the Sun's atmosphere. Information derived from such observations is applied in studying other stars.

Excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica without permission.

If this darkening is a physical property of the layers of the Sun, it interesting that the Moon can sometimes seem to cause the Sun to darken up, despite that the Sun is supposedly 92 million of miles behind the Moon.

Here is another Solar Eclipse photo of the Sun, from Joshua Tree Park on October 23, 2014:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuatreenp/15609084861



Slight adjustments, see arrows:



The edge of the Moon caused the body of the Sun to darken to an luminosity similar to the Sun's edges.

It seems that this effect doesn't happen in an obvious manner all the time:

https://www.edgeonscience.com/annular_solar_eclipse/



In these cases, it might be that the hotspot is off center a bit like in the first eclipse photo in the previous post, but close enough to the center that it is difficult to tell. Different Sun-Moon distances or different mediums between the Sun and Moon in FE, can possibly cause different effects. In RE it's supposed to be a relative vacuum between the Moon and Sun.

From the above image the central hotspot is potentially slightly off-center, shifted slightly to the left of center of the sun disk:



Photos like this may be ambiguous. But that the Moon should ever seem to cause the Sun to obviously darken at all, or cause the hotspot to be obviously off-center, in some pictures, is certainly deserving of investigation.

[stack]

The image is somewhat inaccurate. The Sun is not brighter near the edges. The Sun is actually darker near the edges: A long standing mystery in Astronomy.

I don't know if this is correct, but limb darkening doesn't seem to be a "mystery" to astronomy...

The photosphere is the visible surface of the Sun that we are most familiar with. Since the Sun is a ball of gas, this is not a solid surface but is actually a layer about 100 km thick (very, very, thin compared to the 700,000 km radius of the Sun). When we look at the center of the disk of the Sun we look straight in and see somewhat hotter and brighter regions. When we look at the limb, or edge, of the solar disk we see light that has taken a slanting path through this layer and we only see through the upper, cooler and dimmer regions. This explains the "limb darkening" that appears as a darkening of the solar disk near the limb.
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/surface.shtml

Even lowly olde Britannica gives it a mention:

Such limb darkening occurs because the solar atmosphere increases in temperature with depth. At the centre of the solar disk, an observer sees the deepest and warmest layers that emit the most light. At the limb, only the upper, cooler layers that produce less light can be seen. Observations of solar limb darkening are used to determine the temperature structure of the Sun’s atmosphere.
https://www.britannica.com/science/limb-darkening



You mentioned projection of the celestial bodies on the atmolayer? Where is the projector? And how is it operated?

[Tom Bishop]

That doesn't explain why the Sun has layers with radically different temperatures, or why the photosphere is so much cooler than the sun's atmosphere.

You can find various articles which get published every so often which claim to have solved it like any other major problem, but those are not the consensus that it is a mystery in Astronomy. There are "we solved it!" papers published practically every few years, but sometime later something will be published suggesting that it's a mystery. The official stance is generally that it's a mystery.

Even NASA's standard educational materials admit that it's a historic mystery that still persists:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12903

Discovering the Sun’s Mysteriously Hot Atmosphere

Something mysterious is going on at the Sun. In defiance of all logic, its atmosphere gets much, much hotter the farther it stretches from the Sun’s blazing surface.

Temperatures in the corona — the Sun’s outer atmosphere — spike to 3 million degrees Fahrenheit, while just 1,000 miles below, the underlying surface simmers at a balmy 10,000 F. How the Sun manages this feat is a mystery that dates back nearly 150 years, and remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics. Scientists call it the coronal heating problem.

See: "remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics" and look up the definition of "remains".

From an infographic:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004600/a004668/MM_FATS_Infographic_w_NASA_ID_print.jpg

[stack]

That doesn't explain why the Sun has layers with radically different temperatures, or why the photosphere is so much cooler than the sun's atmosphere.

Well, you were just remarking on the darkness not on what causes the layers to be which causes darkness.

And your explanation seems to be a projection just like mine seems to be layers. And I didn't describe what causes the layers to work the way they do just like you haven't described what causes the projection.

So where is this projector and how does it operate? That, as well, remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in FET.

You can find various articles which get published every so often which claim to have solved it like any other major problem, but those are not the consensus that it is a mystery in Astronomy. There are "we solved it!" papers published practically every year or two, but the next year something will be published suggesting that it's a mystery. The official stance is generally that it's a mystery.

Even NASA's standard educational materials admit that it's a historic mystery that still persists:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12903

Discovering the Sun’s Mysteriously Hot Atmosphere

Something mysterious is going on at the Sun. In defiance of all logic, its atmosphere gets much, much hotter the farther it stretches from the Sun’s blazing surface.

Temperatures in the corona — the Sun’s outer atmosphere — spike to 3 million degrees Fahrenheit, while just 1,000 miles below, the underlying surface simmers at a balmy 10,000 F. How the Sun manages this feat is a mystery that dates back nearly 150 years, and remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics. Scientists call it the coronal heating problem.

See: "remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics" and look up the definition of "remains".

In FET, how does the projected corona get so hot?

[Realestfake]

This raises the question of why they would claim they have no explanation. Either that‘s them being honest or it’s actually just really complicated coverup 4D chess.

They could easily say they have an absolute indisputable explanation for the different temperatures at each layer of the sun, but they don’t. Are we selectively choosing what “they’re” being honest about? We can take their word that they don’t understand this anomaly with the sun’s atmosphere, but we can’t take their word that satellites *exist*?

I can apply a similar principle to questioning why they would say something such as, say, Enceladus exists and simultaneously say they don’t understand everything about it. FE requires that the high-resolution deep space photos of Enceladus are fake, and at the same time the space agencies are open about not knowing everything about it. I suppose I could just write this off as just really really complex coverup logic.

[Tom Bishop]

So where is this projector and how does it operate? That, as well, remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in FET.

It's a projection of a body upon a medium. It's explained in the Wiki - https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

In FET, how does the projected corona get so hot?

It's not necessarily as hot in FE. The temperatures of the sun would need to be recalculated under the assumption of a close sun.

This raises the question of why they would claim they have no explanation. Either that‘s them being honest or it’s actually just really complicated coverup 4D chess.

They could easily say they have an absolute indisputable explanation for the different temperatures at each layer of the sun, but they don’t.

You're right. This may be funding related. NASA needs problems to exist to convince Congress to give them money.

[Realestfake]

You're right. This may be funding related. NASA needs problems to exist to convince Congress to give them money.

But this is assuming the explanation for something we don’t really have a basis for in the first place. Because it’s one thing to be aware that scientists can and do make mistakes, but another to make the base assumption that rather than being mistaken, the “photographs” of Enceladus and Saturn’s moons are not mistakes but intentional (seemingly pointless) artistic fantasy creations.

If they are an attempt to “create problems to get government money” they have utterly failed - Congress doesn’t really care about barren moons of Saturn. I simply have no reason to not accept that they sent Cassini there, got pictures, and don’t have full explanations for why Saturn’s moons are the way they are. This extends to the sun, as the topic opened. They have an explanation, but not a complete one. And this incompleteness (though actually pretty debatable, they don’t claim that it’s a “flaw in RE”) is at least transparent. The sheer magnitude of moving parts in such a conspiracy may be acceptable to some, but not to most.

Sort of reeling back in the original topic, I believe the problem of the sun is somewhat of an impasse. FE claims the sun is not as far as believed in RE. Perhaps, to help this claim, someone could go there. The only ones going there (solar probes) can be disregarded as the conspiracy. This is not an acceptable logical conclusion for most. Anything FE claims to be an explanation for why the sun looks the way it does is speculation, while anything constituting a scientific endeavor (a solar probe) is required to be part of the conspiracy.

If FE has an explanation for the appearance of the sun (which can be confirmed by personal observation), what scientific endeavors could be undergone to try and prove it?

[stack]

So where is this projector and how does it operate? That, as well, remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in FET.

It's a projection of a body upon a medium. It's explained in the Wiki - https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I read the wiki. I didn't see where it explained where the projector is and how it operates. Where is the mechanism located that projects an image of a celestial body on the atmoplane and how does it work?

Also, there's a bunch in the wiki about polarizing filters and glare an such. Some people use Solar filters which are different than polarizing filters.

A polarizer might block one or two stops of visible light. Amount of IR or UV blocked is unknown.
Eye-safe solar filters block over 16 stops of IR, visible, and UV.

Here are a couple of examples of a sunset through a solar filter:



The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

[Tom Bishop]

I read the wiki. I didn't see where it explained where the projector is and how it operates. Where is the mechanism located that projects an image of a celestial body on the atmoplane and how does it work?

A projection does not need a directional "projector". Consider a shadow puppet show in a cave by the light of a fire. The fire in the middle of the cave allows its occupants to project shadow puppets on the cave walls around them. The fire projects light, and is the "projector".

The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

If they are an attempt to “create problems to get government money” they have utterly failed - Congress doesn’t really care about barren moons of Saturn.

Counter argument:

https://americansforprosperity.org/five-outrageous-ways-the-federal-government-has-wasted-your-money-pt-ii/

$1.5 Million Spent Studying Fish on Treadmills

University of California – San Diego study spent a $1.5 million grant from the National Science Foundation to measure the endurance of mudskipper and bluegill fish on a treadmill. . . .

$1.7 Million Spent on a Comedy Club Featuring Dead Comedian Holograms

The U.S. Department of Commerce spent $1.7 million to help construct a comedy museum in Jamestown, New York that will “resurrect” dead comedians – from Lucille Ball to George Carlin – in the form of holograms. . . .

$3 Million Spent Studying the Jaws Theme and People’s Perception of Sharks

In 2016, taxpayers funded a $3 million National Science Foundation grant to study the public’s fear of sharks in relation to the Jaws theme song and music played during documentaries. . . .

The Department of Defense Spent $2.4 Million to Learn How to Get More “Likes” on Social Media

The Department of Defense funded a $2.4 million study to “counter misinformation or deception campaigns with truthful information,” as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Social Media in Strategic Communications program. . . .

$3.4 Million Spent on Hamster Cage Matches

Over the past twenty years, the National Institutes of Health has spent $3.4 million studying aggression and anxiety in more than 1,000 male hamsters. . . .

https://commonplacefacts.com/2020/09/09/doggie-hamlet-brought-to-you-by-your-tax-dollars/

Doggie Hamlet Brought to You By Your Tax Dollars



In 2017, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) awarded a $30,000 grant for the purpose of staging an outdoor production of “Hamlet,” with animals as cast members. As is often the case with anything involving federal funding, this requires more explanation. Although it is classified as a production of “Hamlet,” there aren’t actually any lines from Shakespeare’s immortal play.

The 70-minute production by performance artist Ann Carlson includes five performers, three herding dogs, a dog handler, a dog trainer, and a flock of sheep. Carlson was inspired by David Wroblewski’s The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, which tells the story of a boy who can hear but not speak. He learns American Sign Language to communicate with people, but he also uses a gestural language with the dogs he raises. Carlson, however, does not retell that story, but instead, it explores what it means to be a citizen of the world, with nature included.

[stack]

I read the wiki. I didn't see where it explained where the projector is and how it operates. Where is the mechanism located that projects an image of a celestial body on the atmoplane and how does it work?

A projection does not need a directional "projector". Consider a shadow puppet show in a cave by the light of a fire. The fire in the middle of the cave allows its occupants to project shadow puppets on the cave walls around them. The fire projects light, and is the "projector".

So what is the light source? The sun?
Then what is projecting the sun image on to the atmoplane?

Then take the moon projection. With your shadow puppet in a cave analogy, the Sun (which we don't know how it is projected) is the fire. Some sort of image of the Moon is the shadow puppet hands. And the shadow puppet hands/moon image is then cast on the cave wall/atmoplane.

- So where is the shadow puppet hands/moon image source located?
- And how does the projection create the moon wobble?
- And how does the projection create the solar flares?
- And depending upon where I'm standing on the plane, wouldn't these projected images look distorted in different ways. Much like if I'm way to the left in the front row of a movie theater as opposed to being in the middle of the back row?

The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

Oops, sorry, I missed the Q & A at the end.

Yes, solar filters block a lot of light. Polarizing filters aren't just light blockers, per se. They work by diffusing light waves in specific directions, like horizontally and vertically. That's why when you rotate one you get a different effect.

There are basically two kinds of Solar Filters, White Light and Hydrogen alpha (Ha). The former blocks like 99% of the light so you can see the sun surface and Ha filters block everything except for the wavelength created by hydrogen atoms. So you can see flares and such.

Even from the Answer in the Q & A, I still don't see how it's addressing the fact that with a solar filter the sun does not observably change size. In your analogy if the projection of the sun on the side of a car and that car is 20 meters away and there's another car with the same projection 2 meters away, the projected image will be smaller on the far away car than on the close car. That's not what we observe with the celestial bodies. The projected celestial bodies should get smaller as they move away from us. They don't.

[Tom Bishop]

See bolded:

So what is the light source? The sun? Yes
Then what is projecting the sun image on to the atmoplane? The Sun does. The Sun "projects" light like the fire in the cave example.

Then take the moon projection. With your shadow puppet in a cave analogy, the Sun (which we don't know how it is projected The Sun projects it light upon the atmolayer) is the fire. Some sort of image of the Moon is the shadow puppet hands. And the shadow puppet hands/moon image is then cast on the cave wall/atmoplane.

- So where is the shadow puppet hands/moon image source located? The source is the physical body of the Moon, which also projects (reflected) light rays from it like the Sun
- And how does the projection create the moon wobble? Unrelated
- And how does the projection create the solar flares? Unrelated
- And depending upon where I'm standing on the plane, wouldn't these projected images look distorted in different ways. Much like if I'm way to the left in the front row of a movie theater as opposed to being in the middle of the back row? The projection is made on a section of atmosphere between your eyes and the Sun. It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle.

The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

Oops, sorry, I missed the Q & A at the end.

Yes, solar filters block a lot of light. Yes. Polarizing filters aren't just light blockers, per se. Polarized Filters are different than Solar Filters. They work by diffusing light waves in specific directions, like horizontally and vertically. That's why when you rotate one you get a different effect. This is referring to Polarized Filters, not Solar Filters. Polarized lenses are discussed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Polarized_Lens_Example

There are basically two kinds of Solar Filters, White Light and Hydrogen alpha (Ha). The former blocks like 99% of the light so you can see the sun surface and Ha filters block everything except for the wavelength created by hydrogen atoms. So you can see flares and such.

Even from the Answer in the Q & A, I still don't see how it's addressing the fact that with a solar filter the sun does not observably change size. In your analogy if the projection of the sun on the side of a car and that car is 20 meters away and there's another car with the same projection 2 meters away, the projected image will be smaller on the far away car than on the close car. That's not what we observe with the celestial bodies. The projected celestial bodies should get smaller as they move away from us. They don't. A Solar Filter cannot remove a projection or reflection of light, only dim it. If the projection is magnified it's not going to reveal the true size of the source light, just like a pair of sunglasses can't remove a projection of a movie projection. If the movie screen were a semi-transparent sheet, standing on the other side of the sheet with a pair of sunglasses would not reveal the true size of the light source. The projection could be of various sizes upon the semi-transparent sheet, and the sunglasses will not reveal the true size of the light source.

[stack]

See bolded:

So what is the light source? The sun? Yes
Then what is projecting the sun image on to the atmoplane? The Sun does. The Sun "projects" light like the fire in the cave example.

Then take the moon projection. With your shadow puppet in a cave analogy, the Sun (which we don't know how it is projected The Sun projects it light upon the atmolayer) is the fire. Some sort of image of the Moon is the shadow puppet hands. And the shadow puppet hands/moon image is then cast on the cave wall/atmoplane.

- So where is the shadow puppet hands/moon image source located? The source is the physical body of the Moon, which also projects (reflected) light rays from it like the Sun
- And how does the projection create the moon wobble? Unrelated
- And how does the projection create the solar flares? Unrelated
- And depending upon where I'm standing on the plane, wouldn't these projected images look distorted in different ways. Much like if I'm way to the left in the front row of a movie theater as opposed to being in the middle of the back row? The projection is made on a section of atmosphere between your eyes and the Sun. It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle.

The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

Oops, sorry, I missed the Q & A at the end.

Yes, solar filters block a lot of light. Yes. Polarizing filters aren't just light blockers, per se. Polarized Filters are different than Solar Filters. They work by diffusing light waves in specific directions, like horizontally and vertically. That's why when you rotate one you get a different effect. This is referring to Polarized Filters, not Solar Filters. Polarized lenses are discussed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Polarized_Lens_Example

There are basically two kinds of Solar Filters, White Light and Hydrogen alpha (Ha). The former blocks like 99% of the light so you can see the sun surface and Ha filters block everything except for the wavelength created by hydrogen atoms. So you can see flares and such.

Even from the Answer in the Q & A, I still don't see how it's addressing the fact that with a solar filter the sun does not observably change size. In your analogy if the projection of the sun on the side of a car and that car is 20 meters away and there's another car with the same projection 2 meters away, the projected image will be smaller on the far away car than on the close car. That's not what we observe with the celestial bodies. The projected celestial bodies should get smaller as they move away from us. They don't. A Solar Filter cannot remove a projection or reflection of light, only dim it. If the projection is magnified it's not going to reveal the true size of the source light, just like a pair of sunglasses can't remove a projection of a movie projection. If the movie screen were a semi-transparent sheet, standing on the other side if the sheet with a pair of sunglasses would not reveal the true size of the light source. The projection could be of various sizes upon the semi-transparent screen, and the sunglasses will not reveal the true size of the light source.

I guess I still don't get it. When I'm looking at the moon is it not the moon, but a projection of the moon?

As for filters and such, the point being, whether magnified or not, the sun doesn't change size as it arcs from sunrise to sunset and it should if it's moving away from the observer. As well, the atmolayer isn't a 2D movie screen. It's a thick 3D soup filling the space above the earth.

[Tom Bishop]

In several of those images the lights are not shrinking in a linear manner. The first few lights in the set appear to shrink faster than the last few lights at the end of the row. The cause for this is described at https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

[Realestfake]

In several of those images the lights are not shrinking in a linear manner. The first few lights in the set appear to shrink faster than the last few lights at the end of the row. The cause for this is described at https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

We all know how perspective works, and that particular page isn’t helpful to your argument. Angular size will continue to shrink even with diminishing deltas. Pluto cannot be seen nearly as easily as Io, despite being similar sizes.

[Tom Bishop]

You will be surprised to learn that neither the stars or planets shrink according to the laws of perspective.

See this history and lesson on Astronomy by Prof. Graney. The size of the stars were deemed to be illusions -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

Another section by Prof. Graney also implies that the effect also applies to the planets -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion#Planet_Size_Contradictions

Horrocks’s comments are intriguing, and a clear record of an astronomer discovering that the telescope was producing spurious information as regards the stars. His report is an accurate reflection of how stars are seen to behave when the Moon passes in front of them. However, he gives this report while seeking to justify the small size of Venus that he recorded during its transit across the Sun. He goes on to discuss planetary sizes as though the planets increase in size in proportion to their distance from the Sun, so that if they were observed from the Sun, they would all have the same apparent size. This seems clearly counter to telescopic observations (especially considering he cites Galileo’s star size measurements). Thus his remarks on the sizes of stars and planets are a mixture both of excellent observations and of nonsense obvious to any careful observer.