Where is the Sun?
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.
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...
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?
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/
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.
Am not good at posting pics. So to illustrate just ponder this- a capital letter "A".
Pretend that "A" is part of a landscape picture, and that the point at the top of the "A" is right on the horizon line.
Just stair at any capital "A" on this screen( and pretend that it's hanging from the horizon by the point on top), and you use your imagination for a moment.
What IS that A shaped thing in the picture in your mind?
Is the "A" a three foot tall A-frame doghouse in someone's back yard?
Or, is the "A" a railroad track receding away from the viewer to the horizon miles away (with one visible cross tie, and with the two parallel rails going forever- but vanishing from the viewer at the horizon miles away)?
There is no way to make a "cone" under something a two D pic like they claim to do in the OP. Cones have depth (a third dimension). All you can create on a flat picture is a flat triangle. And that's all that that "sixty degree cone" really is.
You could pull the same hustle as they do in the OP by standing in the middle of a straight railroad track, aiming a camera down the track, and then taking a snapshot. And then posting the snapshot, and claiming that its not a railroad track, but an ultra modern A-frame doghouse three feet tall standing in your backyard ( and you could impose fake animated "cones" on to the pic to "prove" it).
Your photo would show the rails appearing to converge at the horizon line. In reality the rails would be parallel lines that would never converge. But when you post it on Facebook you could claim that the rails really DO converge, and that what the viewer is seeing is not three miles of parallel rails, but a funky little pyramid shaped structure entirely in the foreground.
Some might even fall for it.
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.
93, but what's a few million.
_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 123 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 116 of 200
You seem to have both neurodiverse and neurotypical traits
No, it is a reflection. He shows that it doesn't behave like the reflection of a ceiling light in his hall and then draws false inferences from that ill-conceived experiment.
Why not study optics? We are part of a global civilization that has been working on such problems for millennia and developed some profound insights about them.
_________________
AQ 31
Your Aspie score: 100 of 200 / Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 101 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
What would these results mean? Been told here I must be a "half pint".
"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"?
_________________
AQ 31
Your Aspie score: 100 of 200 / Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 101 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
What would these results mean? Been told here I must be a "half pint".