Sunrise Images

The clouds in the picture mean that these results cannot be trusted. We cannot know what might have been obscured by the clouds.

I still don't get why binoculars speed up time in RE. In FE, all they do is magnify stuff. You know, make it look closer. So in FE, if I looked at the Sun with a powerful telescope, in the instant before I went blind, I would see the Sun, looking like it's six inches from my face. In RE, all I'd see is a night sky. Care to explain?

The clouds in the picture mean that these results cannot be trusted. We cannot know what might have been obscured by the clouds.

to me it looks as though there are no clouds in front of the sun, if there were it would be  a different color and definitely would not be the color of the sea

It does look that way, but looks can be deceiving.

Or it can be exactly what it looks like.

I thought REers didn't like that way of thinking?

What gave you that idea?

Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"

A:  Well, it looks that way up close.

So the fact that we don't accept looking out your window as the definitive proof that Earth is flat means that pictures can't show what they show?  REers are also the ones that say that the pictures from the space missions and moon landings are proof.

No, but since REers are the ones who say that the Earth isn't really flat even though it looks like it is, they should be sceptical of any visual evidence, as it may not be what it appears to be.

So if those aren't pictures of the Sun at sunrise, what else might they be?  The Sun is really behind the clouds?  I am still not sure where you are going with this train of thought with the clouds.

Here is the unmagnified picture that was taken first...

Here is the second picture as viewed through the binoculars...

The bottom of the Sun was not "brought back" through magnification.

How can you demonstrate that none of the sun was restored when looking at it through your binoculars?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2008, 02:04:36 AM

How can you demonstrate that none of the sun was restored when looking at it through your binoculars?

The entire Sun should have been restored if it was simply a matter of perspective, and the lower limb of the Sun is definitely not visible.

If the sun was disappeared due to a perspective effect as Rowbotham described, how could you tell that you haven't restored any portion of the sun when you magnified it?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2008, 08:08:25 AM

If the sun was disappeared due to a perspective effect as Rowbotham described, how could you tell that you haven't restored any portion of the sun when you magnified it?

Both pictures are there.  The area of the Sun is equal in both pictures.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on September 29, 2008, 08:14:15 AM

It looks like some of the sun may have been restored, but I can't tell. The sun is too far away.

So I should have moved closer to the Sun before taking my pictures?  The first picture is the view with the naked eye (unmagnified), and the second is magnified.

Quote

Your experiment is inconclusive.

The results look pretty conclusive to me.  If sunrise is the effect of the Sun coming into view, the entirety of the Sun, including the lower limb (lower edge), should be visible when magnified.  The magnification was sufficient to greatly increase the visible size of the Sun, but could not make more of the Sun visible.  Here is the diagram of the effect...



The entire Sun should be visible, not hidden by the sea.  In both images, magnified and non-magnified, more than the lower half of the Sun is hidden by the sea.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on September 29, 2008, 08:14:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2008, 08:08:25 AM

If the sun was disappeared due to a perspective effect as Rowbotham described, how could you tell that you haven't restored any portion of the sun when you magnified it?

Both pictures are there.  The area of the Sun is equal in both pictures.

It looks like some of the sun may have been restored, but I can't tell. The sun is too far away.

Your experiment is inconclusive.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 28, 2008, 06:44:55 AM

The clouds in the picture mean that these results cannot be trusted. We cannot know what might have been obscured by the clouds.

I'd like to hear your ideas on what might be oscured by the clouds though.

The Sun was not brought back through magnification because the image seen is the Sun shining through distant clouds. You just don't notice the clouds that low because they are so dim compared with the Sun. What you are really seeing is the clouds being lit up from behind, not the Sun directly. Since the clouds are so close, they are unaffected by the perspective effect that causes the Sun to disappear.

The Sun was not brought back through magnification because the image seen is the Sun shining through distant clouds.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on September 29, 2008, 01:25:51 AM

So if those aren't pictures of the Sun at sunrise, what else might they be?  The Sun is really behind the clouds?  I am still not sure where you are going with this train of thought with the clouds.

The Sun was not brought back through magnification because the image seen is the Sun shining through distant clouds. You just don't notice the clouds that low because they are so dim compared with the Sun. What you are really seeing is the clouds being lit up from behind, not the Sun directly. Since the clouds are so close, they are unaffected by the perspective effect that causes the Sun to disappear.

Quote

The Sun was not brought back through magnification because the image seen is the Sun shining through distant clouds.

Don't you mean shining through the distant atmosphere?

Can we have an enlarge digital file?  e.g. a crop of the "actual pixels" of the sun in the first photo.