[3DGeek]

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):



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



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?

[mtnman]

Great example photos. Can't wait to hear an FE explanation 

[3DGeek]

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.  :-)

[mtnman]

I'm assuming it'll be biodegradable luminous pink dye sprayed out of NASA aircraft to help with the coverup.  :-)

LOL 

[Curious Squirrel]

Here's another (imo very pretty) example of this, this time from above the clouds.

[3DGeek]

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.

[DuniyaGolHai]

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.  :-)

 

[Tom Bishop]

Here's another (imo very pretty) example of this, this time from above the clouds.

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.

[Curious Squirrel]

Here's another (imo very pretty) example of this, this time from above the clouds.

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[xenotolerance]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[xenotolerance]

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.

[Curious Squirrel]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[3DGeek]

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.

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.

[xenotolerance]

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?

[StinkyOne]

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)

[3DGeek]

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.

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.

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.

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.