[Pongo]

Have you ever seen rays of light shining down through the clouds?  Something like this?





If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory.  The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states. 

To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.

[Sentient Pizza]

By that logic: The end of all train tracks and roads must also be "very very" close.

Your post is possibly the laziest attempt at a flat earth "proof" I have ever seen. Worst thing about it is it's not even original. Just another lame re-post of the same tired old junk observation/logic.

[Pongo]

Claudius Ptolemy's not original, but people keep dredging that up.

[Sentient Pizza]

wow. I'm going to try to follow the logic here. Please correct me where I lose the plot.

so.... because others have made arguments or claims that include an old world dudes ideas.... means my calling you out for making an obviously lazy/ignorant/tired/pointless thread....is not valid critique/criticism?

[Dog]

Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.

[Rama Set]

Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.

And well documented at that. If you actually measure the rays, they are parallel.

[LogicalKiler]

HAHAHA, PONGO GOT WRECKED SO FAST, ALE Z NIEGO PIZDUSIOWATY ŚMIEĆ.

[JRowe]

Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.

And well documented at that. If you actually measure the rays, they are parallel.

How would you suggest we measure the rays? In what universe does that look parallel?

[Pongo]

Sorry I let this one sit so long without a reply.  People tell you that these rays are parallel because it's in direct contradiction with what your eyes are telling vs what the various pro round-earth institutions in your life are telling you.  This is how your thought processes work:

A) You see something with your own eyes that directly contradicts round-earth theory.
B) You gobble up whatever round-earth science tells you regardless of how ludicrous it is.  "See those non-parallel line?  They are parallel."
C) You act smug about knowing the "truth" besides having done no research on your own whatsoever.

Here's an example.  People in North Korea think that their government has cured everything:
https://metavortex.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/north-koreas-new-miracle-drug-cures-hiv-and-ebola-says-north-korea/

This is because the North Koreans listen to whatever their Fearless Leader tells them.  They check nothing on their own, they just believe it because someone they trust says it.  It doesn't matter how crazy it sounds (unicorns are real, people landed on the moon, we cured everything, those lines are really parallel) they just believe it.

[markjo]

Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.

And well documented at that. If you actually measure the rays, they are parallel.

How would you suggest we measure the rays? In what universe does that look parallel?

In the same universe where parallel railroad tracks appear to converge as they recede into the distance.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.

And well documented at that. If you actually measure the rays, they are parallel.

How would you suggest we measure the rays? In what universe does that look parallel?

There is a less well observed form called anti-crepuscular rays, look away from the sun at the same time and you sometimes see them but fainter, and they narrow down to a point opposite the sun, proving that it is a perspective thing and the rays are indeed parallel. (Jura, member of the cloud appreciation society)

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Pongo!                                                                                             Pongo?

[Orbisect-64]

By that logic: The end of all train tracks and roads must also be "very very" close.

Your post is possibly the laziest attempt at a flat earth "proof" I have ever seen. Worst thing about it is it's not even original. Just another lame re-post of the same tired old junk observation/logic.

Nice word trickery there.

The obvious difference is thus:

1) Train tracks are moving away from the observer.

2) When looking at the clouds and sun-beams, you are seeing it straight on from a side view, so you're seeing the angle as a perfect angle; not as reseeding parallel lines.



May I recommend the following...

1st - Schedule an eye exam ASAP. You should be able to get a prescription and a new pair of glasses in just over an hour at Lenscrafters. Make sure to get one of there coupons to get the best deals.

2nd. Take some courses in art and perspective. This will strip you of your ignorance regarding the sunbeam angles.

3rd. Stop being a deceptive asshat. This is the tough one!

—

[Orbisect-64]

Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.

And well documented at that. If you actually measure the rays, they are parallel.

More word trickery.

When you say "THEY" are parallel, this is misleading. Even the evil Wikipedia states that "the rays are in fact near-parallel shafts of sunlight." Notice the word "NEAR." Near is not the same as EXACT. In other words, because they are not perfectly parallel, they do indeed have an angle.

In truth, the concept is based on deception. There is partial truth in the statement; but the rest which they don't explain is what allows for the lie.

The sunbeams that are close to one another are almost parallel - yet at the same time a slight angel exists, as wiki states (though vaguely). But the farther the beams are from one another, the more the slight angles compound to add up to a large angle.

Wiki makes the same deliberate error the butt-hole above makes in comparing this to railroad tracks which are moving away from the observer. The sunbeams however are not moving away, but are viewed from a distance, straight on, to the side view—Thus the angle observed is true.


—

[Jura-Glenlivet]

And the Anti-crepuscular rays?

[Orbisect-64]

And the Anti-crepuscular rays?

The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.

But here's the primary and major difference.

Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.

Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.


Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg

In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg



—

[Rayzor]

And the Anti-crepuscular rays?

The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.

But here's the primary and major difference.

Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.

Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.


Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg

In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg



—

Try this simple experiment,   get a blank sheet of paper,   draw a horizontal line about half way up, representing the horizon.   Draw a circle in the upper half representing the sun.   Draw some trees and stick figures on the lower half of the page. 

Now draw lines from the sun to the various trees and stick figures,  put in shadows if you like....    do the rays diverge?   Does the divergence of the rays tell you anything about how far away the sun is?

[Orbisect-64]

Another thing I observe:

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/44/a9/46/44a946b6730d14a47423b1cc24ce8984.jpg

The beams [appear] to come [from the tree].

However what should be noted is that the distance between any two beams is very short. Therefor the short length will be calculated together with the angle of the beams to obtain the distance of the sun.

Beams from a distance which hit two points on the ground that are far apart will take the length into consideration, as well as the two angles, when calculating the distance of the sun.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

And the Anti-crepuscular rays?

The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.

But here's the primary and major difference.

Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.

Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.


Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg

In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg



—

Sorry you have misunderstood what anti-crepuscular both look like and how they are the from the same source, ie the sun shining through clouds (nothing to do with trees?), you have to turn 180deg' from the sun to see them and they converge on the opposite horizon showing that it is a perspective thing.
See  http://earthsky.org/earth/how-to-see-anticrepuscular-rays

But even normal Crepuscular rays show a different perspective when viewed from the side, see https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=2&t=cloud70&i=33
Just in case you wanted to see the clouds I meant, it's the one at the bottom right labelled Toronto as this link only takes you part of the way(?)

[Orbisect-64]

And the Anti-crepuscular rays?

The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.

But here's the primary and major difference.

Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.

Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.


Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg

In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg



—

Sorry you have misunderstood what anti-crepuscular both look like and how they are the from the same source, ie the sun shining through clouds (nothing to do with trees?), you have to turn 180deg' from the sun to see them and they converge on the opposite horizon showing that it is a perspective thing.
See  http://earthsky.org/earth/how-to-see-anticrepuscular-rays

But even normal Crepuscular rays show a different perspective when viewed from the side, see https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=2&t=cloud70&i=33
Just in case you wanted to see the clouds I meant, it's the one at the bottom right labelled Toronto as this link only takes you part of the way(?)

Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.

—