[MCToon]

Take a look at this video and demo of a popular pair of polarized glasses for night driving at the 4:52 mark:

Tom, neither the link you provided nor the video you included provide evidence to support a magnification effect to counteract the shrinking that perspective would cause.  We are empiricists here. That means we have higher standards than you.

[juner]

We are empiricists here. That means we have higher standards than you.

I think you are confused. Regardless, refrain from personal quips towards others in the upper fora. Warned.

[MCToon]

We are empiricists here. That means we have higher standards than you.

I think you are confused. Regardless, refrain from personal quips towards others in the upper fora. Warned.

Junker, you seem to have missed when Tom said this exact same phrase:

I see that you have neglected to provided any contradictory evidence or anything of merit to discuss in your response. We are empiricists here. That means we have higher standards than you. If you have anything meaningful to say, you will need to show, not tell.

Don't forget to warn him too.

[iamcpc]

We see that there is a car in the distance with headlights that overlap each other:



Now when he applies the filtered lens -- Surprise surprise, the headlights still overlap:

I understand the point. It's very difficult to correctly estimate the size/shape of a bright light at a distance because of things like glare.

The problem with your point is that you are comparing headlights and glasses to the sun and a solar filter. It's been my experience that the two are significantly different.



I drove to Wyoming during the Eclipse. August 21, 2017.

I would look at the sun with my solar filter on. I would see that 50% of the sun was blocked. I would use my phone camera or just take a fraction of a second glance at the sun which still appeared to be a blinding giant ball of light the same size and shape as always.


Even when the sun was 99.95% blocked by the moon if I briefly glanced at the sun with the naked eye (or with my phone) the sun was still a giant blinding ball of light.

The problem here is that, with the solar filters, I was able to easily see the shape of the eclipse and see the percent of the sun that was being blocked by the moon.

Based on my experience with the solar eclipse and solar filters I believe that you can make a MUCH more accurate measurement of the size of the sun.

[juner]

Junker, you seem to have missed when Tom said this exact same phrase

I did miss Tom's post. Having said that, there was more context than your attempt contained. And it doesn't appear to have been addressed to you at all, so I am not sure why you would quote Tom just to direct a 'throwback' at him.

Don't forget to warn him too.

If you have an issue with a post, report it. Otherwise, seeing that you are not a moderator, please refrain from attempting to moderate. Let me suggest that if you are going to keep posting in the thread, to get back on topic (stick to arguments, not people). If you have an issue with moderation, we have a forum for that.

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

We need to clarify something very important.

Glare and fuzziness around a light source (including objects reflecting light) is an effect caused by random dispersion of light via scattering effects. This is random and can have no relationship to magnification.

Magnification occurs when an observer is placed at the focal point beyond a lens or some other magnifying object. As such it is a specific effect that is highly dependant on the position of source, magnifying object (lens) and observer. If either of these is moved the first thing that is observed is a blurring and distortion of the image. We NEVER see this with the sun. The Sun is always sharp and well defined on a clear day.

To suggest that some optical effect produced by the atmosphere could emulate the magnification phenomena is not credible. The atmosphere by its very nature is random, volatile and TOTALLY unable to produce consistent magnification effects. There is no part of the proposed theory that could come close to being considered. As with virtually every area of FE theory there is no data, no alternative formula and even the basic premise makes no sense. It is simply a idea plucked straight out of thin air (literally in this case). It is infuriating to consider the work and dedication that real scientists put in to establish every inch of the theories they propose. Some take decades to prove only for a an 'alternative' to pop up who's primary sources relate to a single book written by a single scientist in the 19th century while yet more parts of the theory have no background at all. What hubris to imagine that these ideas have equal status in the marketplace of ideas.