DIY Experiment: Function of the sun's movement through the sky w/r to time

Actually the sun is pretty fuzzy. The fuzzyness around the edges of a glare can be reduced with a polarized lens, but it won't reduce the diameter of the magnification upon the atmosphere.

But the Sun is not fuzzy. Sunspots and such can be be observed right down to when the sun's almost behind the horizon, they don't blur out as time goes by.

Quote

Notice how the word "magnification" is not mentioned? Maybe you can find a quote where "glare" is explained in terms of "magnification".

The fact that a glare magnifies light is obvious. Look at any glare and it's easy to see that the light is magnified.

Rowbotham tells us that at a distance a streetlight appears larger. This enlarging of light is known as glare.

Quote

And even then, you are not even trying to address the three simultaneous problems: position, size, brightness.

Size and brightness have already been addressed.

- The sun maintains its size because it is increasingly magnified as it recedes and puts more atmosphere between the sun and observer.

- The sun is not consistently bright throughout the day. In fact when the sun is near the horizon the sun is so dim and diluted in intensity by the atmosphere between the sun and observer that it is easy to look directly at the sun without squinting at all.

The presumed "fact" that glare magnifies light is not "obvious". It is a simple matter of optics that magnification is the increase in apparent size while glare, halos and diffraction by the atmosphere are all ways in which a part of the light from a light source is dispersed. In the case of the Sun and Moon, all of the above are solved by looking them with the appropriate telescope, and Tom Bishop has two fabulous computer guided telescopes. He knows his glare argument is bogus. Or... does he?

The brightness problem is only mentioned by Tom Bishop with his frequent cop-out: "it has been addressed". The only moment when the brightness of the sun is much weaker than at noon is in the final minutes of dusk, but all the models proposed by FE theorists require a reduction of 3/4 of the brightness of the Sun by mid afternoon. Can Tom Bishop look directly at the Sun at mid afternoon for a minute or two at mid afternoon? I did not think so.

Since you like night shots, take a look at this one.  Notice how the street lamps in the distance look smaller than the ones closer.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/78/174958462_c6caedb35a.jpg?v=0

Obviously those dull yellow streetlights in that image aren't intense enough to cause glare.

Just look at the highway picture I posted above. The tail lights of the cars driving away from the camera are not causing glare and are appropriately shrinking into the distance. The headlights on the incoming traffic are intense enough to cause glare.

The presumed "fact" that glare magnifies light is not "obvious". It is a simple matter of optics that magnification is the increase in apparent size while glare, halos and diffraction by the atmosphere are all ways in which a part of the light from a light source is dispersed

Dispersion of light = Magnification of light. Read more.

In the case of the Sun and Moon, all of the above are solved by looking them with the appropriate telescope, and Tom Bishop has two fabulous computer guided telescopes. He knows his glare argument is bogus. Or... does he?

Not sure what your mumbling about.

The brightness problem is only mentioned by Tom Bishop with his frequent cop-out: "it has been addressed". The only moment when the brightness of the sun is much weaker than at noon is in the final minutes of dusk, but all the models proposed by FE theorists require a reduction of 3/4 of the brightness of the Sun by mid afternoon.

Actually, they don't.

There are a lot of problems with the discussion here the first is regarding the use of of photos. When taking a picture of a bright light source a lens with often experience lens flare as a result of scattering within in the lens system. This can look like a halo around the light, smearing of the light or depending on the angle that series of circles running through the frame that computer games use. I took a nice picture (if I do say so myself) of the sun last year for my desktop just for the lens flare. It gave the sun a nice halo and softened the edge with the sky quite nicely. Of course with a camera you also have the effects of discretization, by which I mean a pixel is either hit or it isn't, there is no integration over time.

This can also occur in the human eye, the results are less spectacular as the eye has a very simple optical system, also I guess the brain acts as an aberration corrector to some extent, though I don't really know about that bit. This is what we call glare. So typically the effect is not as bad with the human eye, something I did actually look for last night, though I don't have a camera to compare it with. Though I had little trouble seeing lights far away looking smaller. Although this is not the only effect going on in these photos.

I suspect the main effect in this pictures is neither glar or lens flare (though you can see some lens flare) but multiple scattering from the rain/fog. Now we do see this effect with the sun when its a cloudy day we don't see the sun we just see the dull Grey colour which is because the suns light is being multiply scattered through the cloud. In a clear sky multiple scattering makes the sky look blue its why the dawn/dusk even looks red. Infact it looks redder if there is some kind of pollution/volcanic eruption/weather to make sore scattering hence those red sky at night blah de blah. Something the brightness of the sun doesn't just make it look a little bit bigger it changes the whole colour of the sky, I think theres a misconception of scale here. Using car lights to look study the sun is like doing nuclear physics by looking at a candle.

Finally not that it matters but magnification most definitely does not equal dispersion. But thats not really relevant as I don't see magnification or dispersion in those photos. I hate to admit it but the wiki page on dispersion is fairly well written.

Dispersion of light = Magnification of light. Read more.

Need I say more? This is the "gravitation = acceleration" brainless discussion, only more stupid.

Again, please show us even one definition of dispersion where it is defined as magnification. Or the other way around if you like. And don't bother with the "its obvious" response.

Just look at the highway picture I posted above. The tail lights of the cars driving away from the camera are not causing glare and are appropriately shrinking into the distance. The headlights on the incoming traffic are intense enough to cause glare.

That's because the pciture is faked. Probably by you. Post real evidence Tom.

Finally not that it matters but magnification most definitely does not equal dispersion. But thats not really relevant as I don't see magnification or dispersion in those photos. I hate to admit it but the wiki page on dispersion is fairly well written.

Considering that a magnifying glass disperses the light rays from the source to create a larger image, you're wrong.

Again, please show us even one definition of dispersion where it is defined as magnification. Or the other way around if you like. And don't bother with the "its obvious" response.

Definition of disperse: To separate or spread out.
Definition of magnification: The act of expanding something in apparent size.

Go back to school.

Dispersion has a very specific meaning. The phase velocity of light in a medium can depend on the frequency of the light. So when the light passes through the colours can be made to separate. A prism is the most famous examples of this. However the effect is more famous from being a design pain with fibre optic cables. Anyway it isn't magnification, which creates diverent rays with a curved refractive surface, in general.

Dispersion has a very specific meaning. The phase velocity of light in a medium can depend on the frequency of the light. So when the light passes through the colours can be made to separate. A prism is the most famous examples of this. However the effect is more famous from being a design pain with fibre optic cables. Anyway it isn't magnification, which creates diverent rays with a curved refractive surface, in general.

Light through a magnifying glass is spread out and "dispersed."

Learn more.

No. You learn more. I think i've found the right level.

Quote from: markjo

Since you like night shots, take a look at this one.  Notice how the street lamps in the distance look smaller than the ones closer.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/78/174958462_c6caedb35a.jpg?v=0

Obviously those dull yellow streetlights in that image aren't intense enough to cause glare.

Just look at the highway picture I posted above. The tail lights of the cars driving away from the camera are not causing glare and are appropriately shrinking into the distance. The headlights on the incoming traffic are intense enough to cause glare.

I don't know Tom, it seems to me that those streetlights in the foreground show some pretty obvious glare.

As for the headlights of the oncoming traffic, the combination of motion blur, burn-in and a low resolution camera can easily explain why the far away headlights look bigger.  Try finding an example of a properly exposed picture like I did and then we can talk some more.

No. You learn more. I think i've found the right level.

of course you have

wasn't it something like  dn(λ)/dλ ?

ah and even if you take tom's statement in a non physically way it's still wrong. a magnifying glass is usually referred to as a converging lens, not dispering.

Well yeah the effect depends on that derivative but it should probably be expressed in terms of the phase velocity I guess. For material dispersion at least. Think that makes sense, been a while since I did this, at least waveguide dispersion hasnt come up yet.

Well of course you are at liberty to turn a lens around and burn something optics is symmetric about a change of direction.

...unless you include nonlinear effects such as self-focussing...

...unless you include nonlinear effects such as self-focussing...

What are you suggesting? The atmosphere has self-focusing abilities? Are we talking optics or relativistic effects, or something else?

If we are again talking about a solution that does not solve the three problems of apparent size, apparent location and observed brightness, you might want to start explaining when your non-linear effects create or destroy energy so that observers receive approximately the same amount of light at noon and at mid-afternoon.

Knowing strange physical theories is nice, but there are certain physical principles that you never can ignore, like conservation of energy.

I'm just stating that whatever theories you come up with, be sure you take the effects we already know about into account.  Nonlinear effects are used all the time - in the lab I work in, which uses high powered pulse lasers, you have to be careful not to induce self-focussing in the air and glass it passes through.  This does not violate conservation of energy or anything else, it is well understood.

My main point was that you can't use linear optics arguments when the local energy densities may induce such effects.

I'm just stating that whatever theories you come up with, be sure you take the effects we already know about into account.  Nonlinear effects are used all the time - in the lab I work in, which uses high powered pulse lasers, you have to be careful not to induce self-focussing in the air and glass it passes through.  This does not violate conservation of energy or anything else, it is well understood.

My main point was that you can't use linear optics arguments when the local energy densities may induce such effects.

I have not said in any place that the optical effects have to be linear. I am saying in a flat Earth you are a lot closer to the Sun and Moon at noon than at mid afternoon or the end of the afternoon, and that means that either the light from the Sun disperses through a larger geographic area and becomes dimmer, or disperses through a larger geographical area and the apparent size becomes smaller, or both.

You can find a solution to the apparent position of the celestial objects, just by requiring the light to twist in just the right way, (with bendy light, for example) or you can find a solution where light reaches every observer with the same brightness, or with the same apparent size. What you cannot do is the three at the same time. The only way to do the three at the same time is having the Sun and Moon at the same distance from every observer.

You are fighting against the principle of conservation of energy, whether you use linear or non-linear optics. And you are still just trying to make three known facts fit some yet unknown theory. While working on that, try to explain the known fact that you see the same sunspots and craters on the Sun and Moon at every time of one day or night.

I'm just trying to make sure that FET has been considered as broadly as possible - providing a variety of mechanisms is the first step to others using them to come up with something testable.

If that was the case then its probably telling something very fundamental about the sun. Its been a while since I did optics like this but I think i've only ever studied in in the context of the Kerr effect which of course applies to laser radiation, not sure how to work out the critical power otherwise. Though I guess the effect fundamentally probably doesn't depend on coherence so in principle theres no reason it couldn't happen. I guess my biggest problem with this is of course that while there is a huge amount of energy its actually spread out over quite a broad range of wavelengths. Also estimating the solar radiation density is not that hard and we are out by many orders of magnitude.