[Tom Bishop]

Oddly, the Galaxies do not follow the laws of perspective either -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Angular_Size_of_Galaxies

Angular Size of Galaxies

One would expect that a distant galaxy should be smaller in apparent size than a closer galaxy, in a linear manner according to the laws of perspective. However, the sizes of the galaxies do not decrease linearly with distance.

Astronomers Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Wesley Richards write in The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery, on p.191:

  “ Of course Earth’s atmosphere does blur the images of astronomical bodies, but an interesting cosmic coincidence reduces its negative impact on our observations of distant galaxies. The angular sizes of distant galaxies do not just decrease linearly with increasing distance, as nearby objects do. Paradoxically, angular size declines until a redshift of about one and then increases for larger redshifts. The minimum angular size of a Milky Way-like galaxy is just about the same size as the blurring effect of our atmosphere.³⁸ Our atmosphere is not nearly the impediment for viewing the most distant galaxies that one might expect. ”

[stack]

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

The laws of perspective are an illusion as well.

Did you happen to read the rest of the article this graphic is from? Specifically in reference to the last sentence:
Copernicans could not explain away the anomalous data without appeals to divine intervention. In reality, the stars are far away, but their apparent width is an illusion, an artifact of the way light behaves as it enters a pupil or telescope-behavior that scientists would not understand for another 200 years.

It has a little something to do with 93 million miles away and 864,000 miles in diameter versus 3000 miles away and 30 miles in diameter.

And I still don't understand this: "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"
What does It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle mean?

[Tom Bishop]

Regardless of reasoning, the point is that according to the official theory of Astronomy the stars we see are illusions. They do not follow the perspective laws:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion



The same applies to the planets and the galaxies. They defy the perspective laws. This nullifies the complaints that the celestial bodies should follow the laws of perspective, and nullifies your past repeated spams with animations of things shrinking with distance.

And I still don't understand this: "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"
What does It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle mean?

You were asking why the projection couldn't be viewed from another angle other than straight on and gave an example of people sitting at different positions in a movie theater. The projection that appears to you is a personal projection.  It is made on a section of the atmolayer between your eyes and the Sun/the Sun's light.

For some things, only your particular eyes or position can see. Reflections are also positional and personal to the person or thing observing it. Not everyone from all positions will see this long reflection on the water:



Someone positioned from above the water looking down at the surface from above will not see a line of light on the water. The light is personal to you. Likewise, people positioned at various points along the shore looking towards the Sun will see the line of light on the water appearing to point and lead directly towards each of them.

In a sense, the light is "projected" onto the water surface by the sun, and this "projection" is something only you can see from that particular position.

[Realestfake]

I don’t see how explaining how reflections work relates to celestial bodies. To make such claims as the sun/moon is something something projection instead of objects in space, there should be proof. Speculating something about how “reflections are personal” is too weak to really take seriously. Through personal observation, without trusting external sources, we can agree where the sun and moon are and predict where they will be. To take seriously the suggestion that what looks like a rock with 3D craters is actually a personal projection, there should be some level of proof or reason to believe this.

[Tom Bishop]

The way luminous light sources stop shrinking, or reduce their rate of shrinking, with distance, is evidence. That the stars, planets, and galaxies are said to be illusions in modern Astronomy, is also evidence that special rules apply to the celestial bodies beyond traditional perspective theory.

Another interesting phenomenon for this is that the Moon will sometimes appear to be in front of clouds. Clouds that will normally easily obscure a bird can't obscure the Moon. I saw this for myself just yesterday from the Bay Area California. The Moon and all of its details seemed to be floating in front of the clouds behind it. Only the darkest of clouds could obscure the Moon. This is similar to what I saw:

[stack]

That the stars, planets, and galaxies are said to be illusions in modern Astronomy, is also evidence that special rules apply to the celestial bodies beyond traditional perspective theory.

Apparently special rules apply on earth as well when it comes to the traditional laws of perspective. The car traveling away from me doesn't really shrink in physical size as it gets further away, it's just an illusion that it appears to shrink.

[Tom Bishop]

Delegating perspective shrinking to an illusion is even worse for you, as you are now stamping your feet about one optical illusion over another optical illusion.

[stack]

Delegating perspective shrinking to an illusion is even worse for you, as you are now stamping your feet about one optical illusion over another optical illusion.

Not at all, no stomping required. Just seemed that you were singling out that illusion is somehow "special" and unique to astronomy when it's no more special than terrestrial perspective illusion.

[Realestfake]

Another interesting phenomenon for this is that the Moon will sometimes appear to be in front of clouds. Clouds that will normally easily obscure a bird can't obscure the Moon. I saw this for myself just yesterday from the Bay Area California. The Moon and all of its details seemed to be floating in front of the clouds behind it. Only the darkest of clouds could obscure the Moon. This is similar to what I saw:

Are you suggesting that the moon is at a lower altitude than some clouds?

[Tom Bishop]

I don't think the Moon is below the altitude of some clouds. I suspect that this is an effect of the Moon's projection on the atmolayer. The clouds are of a nature to which the projection effect can pass through the clouds and project on, or in front, of them like the light otherwise projects upon the atmolayer in the FE description. This causes the Moon to appear to be in front of the clouds. It doesn't seem to affect all clouds, however. Very dark clouds will still obscure the Moon.

When looking up at the Moon on a cloudy night one is prone to wonder why the clouds see to be parting around the Moon to allow the details of its face to be fully visible. One might imagine that these are special clouds which the light of the Moon can pass through, but it is odd that the light is so cleanly absorbed. If we are imagining special effects in which light is absorbed and re-transmitted on its way to the eye then the possibility of a projection is opened up as well.

Here is another video of this occurrence:

Delegating perspective shrinking to an illusion is even worse for you, as you are now stamping your feet about one optical illusion over another optical illusion.

Not at all, no stomping required. Just seemed that you were singling out that illusion is somehow "special" and unique to astronomy when it's no more special than terrestrial perspective illusion.

If you are pointing out that reality exists as a series of illusions then it significantly weakens your case for how things "should" be.

[Realestfake]

The plain simple answer: high exposure with thin clouds over moon = not enough contrast to make out a difference, even with your naked eyes. Use a camera and lower the exposure, and clouds will be resolved in front of the moon.
You can test this with a light source, some smoke, and a camera. You will get the same effect.

So many people in those comments kicking and screaming about how the sheeple blindly believe authority, when you can just think for yourself and come to this conclusion.

[stack]

I agree. Looks like an exposure issue more than anything else. From the video posted, around 1:25, changing exposure reveals the clouds in front of the Moon:

[Tom Bishop]

There are two arguments here:

The clouds are darkening the moon like a room filled with smoke and the camera adjusts to compensate

This would necessitate that the clouds equally darken the Moon. In the above videos we can see that is not the case. There are different cloud layers and gaps of sky in the clouds. If the clouds were darkening the Moon we would see the clouds.

That the clouds are there but it's being erased by over-exposure

Over-exposure in those videos occur when the camera is zoomed out. When the camera zooms in the camera adjusts and exposure is corrected. The grey clouds do not appear in front of the Moon when two different cameras correct for exposure.

So you have it backwards. The over-exposure is the bright version.

[Realestfake]

There are two arguments here:

The clouds are darkening the moon like a room filled with smoke and the camera adjusts to compensate

This would necessitate that the clouds equally darken the Moon. In the above videos we can see that is not the case. There are different cloud layers and gaps of sky in the clouds. If the clouds were darkening the Moon we would see the clouds.

That the clouds are there but it's being erased by over-exposure

Over-exposure in those videos occur when the camera is zoomed out. When the camera zooms in the camera adjusts and exposure is corrected. The grey clouds do not appear in front of the Moon when two different cameras correct for exposure.

So you have it backwards. The over-exposure is the bright version.

No.

Clouds = brighter than space (as they are moonlit). They will appear as gray over the black sky.
Clouds = darker than moon. They will appear as black over the white moon.

Exposure up = bright things lose contrast, dark things gain contrast. Thus you lose the clouds in front of the moon and gain the clouds around it.

Exposure down = dark things lose contrast, bright things gain contrast. The clouds in front of the moon are resolved and the clouds around the moon are lost with the black sky.

[stack]

I don't think the Moon is below the altitude of some clouds. I suspect that this is an effect of the Moon's projection on the atmolayer. The clouds are of a nature to which the projection effect can pass through the clouds and project on, or in front, of them like the light otherwise projects upon the atmolayer in the FE description. This causes the Moon to appear to be in front of the clouds. It doesn't seem to affect all clouds, however. Very dark clouds will still obscure the Moon.

When looking up at the Moon on a cloudy night one is prone to wonder why the clouds see to be parting around the Moon to allow the details of its face to be fully visible. One might imagine that these are special clouds which the light of the Moon can pass through, but it is odd that the light is so cleanly absorbed. If we are imagining special effects in which light is absorbed and re-transmitted on its way to the eye then the possibility of a projection is opened up as well.

Do you have a diagram or some visual of this Moon projection? I still don't get how it works. What's causing the projection? Angle of projection? The source element that is being projected and where it is located when the projected image is somewhere else? etc.

As well, what are 'special' clouds? And is there any literature that discusses special clouds? Seems like we're talking about a lot of illusion much like the 'illusion' you call out in Astronomy. You've got the illusion of a projected image of a something that is not really physically there and the illusions caused by a special as yet unidentified type of clouds.

[SimonC]

Delegating perspective shrinking to an illusion is even worse for you, as you are now stamping your feet about one optical illusion over another optical illusion.

Not at all, no stomping required. Just seemed that you were singling out that illusion is somehow "special" and unique to astronomy when it's no more special than terrestrial perspective illusion.

Although the photo of you posted was a result of 'trick' photography (using a tilt/shift lens) and not a natural optical illusion.

[Everette Graham]

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. ”

From an astrophotography perspective, the photographers most likely used monochrome cameras. During postprocessing of a lot of solar imagery, especially images that include the visibility of the chromosphere, the image's colors are inverted and false color is added. I am certain that this is the reason why the "edges" are brighter and the center is darker.