Shining light on an old topic.

the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here. bendy light is very much thrown out of the window for many reasons even though many do not accept this. ENaG doesnt talk about bendy light but uses perspective and the atmosphere to explain sunsets. today while watching the clouds oposit the sunset i realised something. now this may of been posted before but i havnt seen this in the time ive been lurking here. here is my evidence that throws some ideas of fet away and may force us to think of new ideas.

fig.1.



the green lines represent the surface of the earth.
the yellow lines represent ligh rays
the grey shapes are clouds
the red lines are horizons
the black circles represent the observer
and finally the blue line represent the direct angle to the sun but the light cant be seen

the picture is showing a cloud being illuminated at sunset after the sun goes below the horizon. the most popular theory is that the atmosphere blocks the suns light getting to the observer and thats why we cant see a 24 hour sun. also the other popular theory for clouds reflecting the light off the bottom when the sun is higher is because the light reflects off the earth then off the cloud to the observer.
i added the rets answer to why the clouds are lit from bellow for comparison.

at first i didnt think it was much of an issue. i thought the suns light will be travelling through a lower density therefore it will travel further. but this will explain this picture:

fig.2.



here the suns light only has to travel high up in the atmosphere until it reaches the cloud then reflects off to the observer. but this is when the observer is between the cloud and the sun.

however in fig.1. the light has to travel a much greater distance than it would if it was taking a direct path AND the suns light is traveling through the atmosphere at a low altitude for a greater distance than any other time of the day. yet the light is still able to travel to the cloud and then reflect off the cloud to the observer.

Nice illustration squevil. I'd say 3 more months and you'll be a FE'er extraordinaire.

Nice illustration squevil. I'd say 3 more months and you'll be a FE'er extraordinaire.

Did you read and understand what he's showing here?

im saying that current theories need evaluating as some simple logic brings complications. although hoppy if the fes did still stand by the current theories on how clouds are illuminated then i think the pictures are a good resourse

I'd like to point out that the only people that ever bring up bendy light are RE'ers. Lurk moar, Squevil - bendy light has been disproved. It's only in debate because RE'ers keep ignoring that fact.
The Parsec disproof is listed here for your education and enlightenment:

1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.

I'd like to point out that the only people that ever bring up bendy light are RE'ers. Lurk moar, Squevil - bendy light has been disproved. It's only in debate because RE'ers keep ignoring that fact.
The Parsec disproof is listed here for your education and enlightenment:

1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.

feel free to post about bendy light in a thread talking about bendy light

the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here.

I was addressing your misleading quote here.

im saying that current theories need evaluating as some simple logic brings complications. although hoppy if the fes did still stand by the current theories on how clouds are illuminated then i think the pictures are a good resourse

I gave you a compliment in my previous post, again nice job.

Quote from: squevil on April 20, 2012, 05:35:26 PM

the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here.

I was addressing your misleading quote here.

and if you had quoted the next line you would see that i said exactly the same as you. however it was not the point of the post and you have focused on something that has nothing to do with the op. in other words its derailing the thread.
next your going to tell me that it was in the op... well yes it was but i only mentioned it before somebody started shouting about bendy light, when we all know it doesnt exist. and you no very well that members of the flat earth soceity subscribe to bendy light theory still.

but i would like to highlight the fact that yet again no die hard believer will comment on my posts when i start a topic 
i would like more information as this is all going towards my work on light and atmospheric density.

but i would like to highlight the fact that yet again no die hard believer will comment on my posts when i start a topic 
i would like more information as this is all going towards my work on light and atmospheric density.

I get that all the time - see "INS disproves FET", "The Difficult To Answer Thread" and "Moon Features" for a comedic non-presence of FE'ers

Quote from: squevil on April 21, 2012, 04:36:45 PM

but i would like to highlight the fact that yet again no die hard believer will comment on my posts when i start a topic 
i would like more information as this is all going towards my work on light and atmospheric density.

I get that all the time - see "INS disproves FET", "The Difficult To Answer Thread" and "Moon Features" for a comedic non-presence of FE'ers

i read all the threads in the upper fora

is there no debate to be had? this is fundamental fet here that im disputing

the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here. bendy light is very much thrown out of the window for many reasons even though many do not accept this.

As long long as you don't list the reasons, I can't help you.

Quote from: squevil on April 20, 2012, 05:35:26 PM

the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here. bendy light is very much thrown out of the window for many reasons even though many do not accept this.

As long long as you don't list the reasons, I can't help you.

'the reasons' im talking about go against bendy light. nobody can help or comment because you cant. this disproves fundamental theories of fet.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 06:21:30 PM

Quote from: squevil on April 20, 2012, 05:35:26 PM

the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here. bendy light is very much thrown out of the window for many reasons even though many do not accept this.

As long long as you don't list the reasons, I can't help you.

'the reasons' im talking about go against bendy light. nobody can help or comment because you cant. this disproves fundamental theories of fet.

What are you talking about? "Go against" as in disprove? As I understand your OP, you do not attempt to disprove bendy light. After all, there aren't even any curved light paths in your diagrams.

why are you talking about bendy light again? its not the point of the post. i added it as i thought it would be the first thing that was said about the pictures to explain whats going on. yet bendy light doesnt exist anyway. this post is about zetetic science. not about guessing and making things up.

some great debating skills here 

come on im telling you that the setting sun theories dont match up to reality. are you really that blown away by my epic paint pictures that not even tom bishop can refute the evidence? see this is what was missing in the 19th century, good 'ol ms paint.

some great debating skills here 

come on im telling you that the setting sun theories dont match up to reality. are you really that blown away by my epic paint pictures that not even tom bishop can refute the evidence? see this is what was missing in the 19th century, good 'ol ms paint.

Redraw your epic pictures with the light from the spotlight sun bouncing off the face of the flat Earth, hitting the clouds, and dispersing in all directions as water vapor would. 

Quote from: squevil on April 24, 2012, 11:28:21 PM

some great debating skills here 

come on im telling you that the setting sun theories dont match up to reality. are you really that blown away by my epic paint pictures that not even tom bishop can refute the evidence? see this is what was missing in the 19th century, good 'ol ms paint.

Redraw your epic pictures with the light from the spotlight sun bouncing off the face of the flat Earth, hitting the clouds, and dispersing in all directions as water vapor would.

How does that change anything?  I don't think you understand the diagram.

I'm confident if you think about it long enough, CET, you'll understand.

I'm confident if you think about it long enough, CET, you'll understand.

Draw your own diagram, explain yourself, or quit making low content posts.

And to do what you're too lazy to do, squevil's diagram is showing the path a photon would have to take to get to the viewer.  Having the light disperse in every direction when it hit the clouds wouldn't change a thing because we're only looking at the light that's making it to the observer.

So you're saying that light dispersed in all directions would not reach the observer?  In other words, Squevil's pictures are wrong because clouds do not act like mirrors.

On a side note, CET, what's with all the rage?  If I'm misreading your tone then I apologize, but it seems like you could use a moment to relax.

So you're saying that light dispersed in all directions would not reach the observer?  In other words, Squevil's pictures are wrong because clouds do not act like mirrors.

Nope.  You have failed to understand even with an explanation

On a side note, CET, what's with all the rage?  If I'm misreading your tone then I apologize, but it seems like you could use a moment to relax.

This aggressively stupid act you put on is getting tiresome.  Give it up.

Tomorrow I'll walk you through the explanation, but for now I'm going to sleep. If the reason "dawns" on you before then, please say so to save me the effort. In the meantime, go purchase a stress-ball or something. These issues are by no means worth getting so worked up over.

If the reason "dawns" on you before then, please say so to save me the effort.

Since this "reason" probably only makes sense to you at this moment, I wouldn't worry about this happening.

I'm confident if you think about it long enough, CET, you'll understand.

Standard FEer dodge. For shame. It's your theory, so you should be the one working to show that it can explain the reason that clouds are illuminated from below at sunrise and sunset. Otherwise, we can just go with the default: Once again FET fails to match reality and is disproven.

So you're saying that light dispersed in all directions would not reach the observer?  In other words, Squevil's pictures are wrong because clouds do not act like mirrors.

On a side note, CET, what's with all the rage?  If I'm misreading your tone then I apologize, but it seems like you could use a moment to relax.

i think your find that you need to sit and think about it by the sounds of it. it doesnt make any difference if i show light going in all directions as CET has said the picture shows visable light that the observer can see. but just for you i made one anyway:



see that was useful wasnt it? the picture i painstaking drew in fig.1 is just showing the most direct path that the light takes to reach the observer. if i was to show every photon, well you can see got yourself how pointless that was.

also if the light isnt reflecting off the cloud like a mirror then what is happening? you do know that light reflecting off an object into the eye is how we see dont you? so really all objects act like mirrors as far as light is concerned, you may not see your beautiful face by staring at a brick wall but the light is still reflecting off and into your eye.

Quote from: Pongo on April 25, 2012, 12:09:07 AM

So you're saying that light dispersed in all directions would not reach the observer?  In other words, Squevil's pictures are wrong because clouds do not act like mirrors.

On a side note, CET, what's with all the rage?  If I'm misreading your tone then I apologize, but it seems like you could use a moment to relax.

i think your find that you need to sit and think about it by the sounds of it. it doesnt make any difference if i show light going in all directions as CET has said the picture shows visable light that the observer can see. but just for you i made one anyway:



see that was useful wasnt it? the picture i painstaking drew in fig.1 is just showing the most direct path that the light takes to reach the observer. if i was to show every photon, well you can see got yourself how pointless that was.

also if the light isnt reflecting off the cloud like a mirror then what is happening? you do know that light reflecting off an object into the eye is how we see dont you? so really all objects act like mirrors as far as light is concerned, you may not see your beautiful face by staring at a brick wall but the light is still reflecting off and into your eye.

Nope. Not all objects reflect light (Black holes, transparent media). Not all objects reflect light without detectable changes (Shine only a blue light on a red brick. You'll see a black, not blue, not red, brick.)

Quote from: Pongo on April 25, 2012, 12:27:48 AM

If the reason "dawns" on you before then, please say so to save me the effort.

Since this "reason" probably only makes sense to you at this moment, I wouldn't worry about this happening.

Then allow me to enlighten you.

All right, imagine a spotlight sun shinning down on the Earth.  You are in this spotlight and it appears to be daytime to you.  You can see clouds in the sky what light is filtering through.  People in the spotlight high up in planes can also see the same clouds as some of the light is reflected by up and some filters though.  To everyone, it appears that the cloud is glowing, not reflecting like a mirror.  Now, we know that the cloud isn't glowing on it own, it's reflecting light from the sun in all directions.

Now, the sun sets and the cloud is to your West.  Light bounces off the Earth and hits the cloud causing it to send light in all directions as it normally does.  The cloud still appears to glow after sunset.

If the cloud is to your East when the sun sets, then it is still being lit by light bouncing off the Earth and hitting the cloud.  However, it will darken before the ones in the West as the spotlight moves further and further away and the atmo-layer weakens the light.

In both cases, it appears to you that the sun has set, but the clouds are still glowing.