25 Mar 2015, 5:07 pm
25 Mar 2015, 7:09 pm
Nambo wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Nambo wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Any light coming into the atmosphere from any direction but straight down is refracted
ruveyn
So what occurs to refract the light in all those different directions?
I would have thought all the light would be bent in the same direction as occurs when light passes through water.
Light of different frequencies are refracted differently. That is why sunset looks so red.
ruveyn
Pollution as well, but that isnt my question, my question concerns the distance the rays of light striking the Earth will converge if you follow them up.
I think you are still failing to take into account the role of the perceiving lens(es). Did you look at the aureole or heiligenschein examples--it's not like the world is choosing to put a halo just around the photographer's head--but that is the way it seems.
Consider the way perspective makes parallel lines appear to converge on a distant point....
Try paragraphs 2 and 3 from this explanation:
http://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/2011/06/05/ ... ds-called/
If the logic behind the flat earth dingbat's argument was right, then these crepuscular rays would have to mean the sun was under the clouds....
and these anticrepuscular rays (actually on the other side of the sky from the sun) would mean the sun was under the earth...
26 Mar 2015, 5:28 am
Adamantium wrote:
I think you are still failing to take into account the role of the perceiving lens(es). Did you look at the aureole or heiligenschein examples--it's not like the world is choosing to put a halo just around the photographer's head--but that is the way it seems.
Consider the way perspective makes parallel lines appear to converge on a distant point....
Try paragraphs 2 and 3 from this explanation:
http://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/2011/06/05/ ... ds-called/
If the logic behind the flat earth dingbat's argument was right, then these crepuscular rays would have to mean the sun was under the clouds....
and these anticrepuscular rays (actually on the other side of the sky from the sun) would mean the sun was under the earth...
Yes indeed perspective would create such angles if you were looking towards or away from parallel lines, so this corridor has steep angles that would be the same steep angles if the corridor was 96 million miles long.
But if you were looking down onto a corridor or railway lines, at 90 degrees.those lines would now appear parallel, so when looking at the suns rays along the ground when the sun is overhead so you are viewing them at 90 degrees, surely perspective is no longer relevant?
26 Mar 2015, 9:04 am
Nambo wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
I think you are still failing to take into account the role of the perceiving lens(es). Did you look at the aureole or heiligenschein examples--it's not like the world is choosing to put a halo just around the photographer's head--but that is the way it seems.
Consider the way perspective makes parallel lines appear to converge on a distant point....
Try paragraphs 2 and 3 from this explanation:
http://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/2011/06/05/ ... ds-called/
If the logic behind the flat earth dingbat's argument was right, then these crepuscular rays would have to mean the sun was under the clouds....
and these anticrepuscular rays (actually on the other side of the sky from the sun) would mean the sun was under the earth...
Yes indeed perspective would create such angles if you were looking towards or away from parallel lines, so this corridor has steep angles that would be the same steep angles if the corridor was 96 million miles long.
But if you were looking down onto a corridor or railway lines, at 90 degrees.those lines would now appear parallel, so when looking at the suns rays along the ground when the sun is overhead so you are viewing them at 90 degrees, surely perspective is no longer relevant?
First, there is more to perspective than just one point perspective in the center of the field of view... Look at two and three point perspective image where at least one vanishing point is to the far left or right for comparison.
Then try putting yourself in a hall and look 45 degrees to either side, what happens?
Finally consider the path that the light you are seeing is travelling to reach your eyes. Your perception is part of what gives them their shape. Place your lens in a different spot and those beams and rays will take on a new aspect. It's not hard to see crepuscular rays yourself if you go out at the right time when there is scattered or broken cloud cover and you can test some of this.
http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2011/07/ ... -blue-sky/
26 Mar 2015, 10:11 am
26 Mar 2015, 10:41 am
naturalplastic wrote:
It has nothing to do with refraction, nor bending of light, nor anything distorting the light itself.
Its simple perspective. The illusion created by seeing a three dimensional phenomenon in a two dimensional photo, or painting.
Its simple perspective. The illusion created by seeing a three dimensional phenomenon in a two dimensional photo, or painting.
Right.
And the vanishing point need not be near the center of the field of view:
That said, crepsucular rays, aka "jacob's ladders" can be lovely in three dimensions, too. I have seen some beautiful examples over Salisbury Plain in England, and above the Atlantic from Long Island.
31 Aug 2015, 7:58 pm
Nambo wrote:
So what is the scientific explanation for why the sun is 96 million miles away whereas geometry would indicate its not that far above the clouds?
93, but what's a few million.
01 Sep 2015, 2:32 am
03 Sep 2015, 1:06 pm
03 Sep 2015, 1:55 pm
04 Sep 2015, 4:22 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
The Freemasons have been concealing the truth for centuries:that the earth is really flat, and the Sun is actually the same size as a Goodyear Blimp. And in fact that Malaysian airliner that vanished last year is actually known to have ventured a little too high above the normal 35 thousand foot operating altitude for passenger jets, and to have gotten vaporized while colliding with the sun. The Sun ofcourse moves seasonally between the Tropic Cancer, and the Tropic of Capricorn, never getting far from the Equator. So colliding with the sun is an endemic problem of pilots flying in the waters of Equatorial countries like Indonesia/Malaysia ( kinda like an aerial iceberg). But the media never talks about it.
04 Sep 2015, 4:27 pm
Adamantium wrote:
...If the logic behind the flat earth dingbat's argument was right, then these crepuscular rays would have to mean the sun was under the clouds...
"Dingbat"?
For SHAME, Adamantium. To use such a term in this day and age! Shouldn't we, in today's enlightened world, be using terms like "differently aware"?
