Optical Occultation of the Sun
(youtu.be)
Comments (59)
sorted by:
truth sounds dumb, until u understand. But feel free to download the video, write out the text and do your own narration if that what makes you happy.
agreed, i posted this on Facebook and the anti Flat Earther are just like "i hate flat Earth therefore this is stupid cause it goes against my programming". Dealing with them is like playing chess with a 4 year old, after they loser they just flip over the board and start yelling and screaming and crying in order to avoid any intellectual honesty and real understanding. Its sad really that the gullible masses are so easily controlled by whatever the media fills that time vacuous space they have between their ears. The constant echoing must be deafening to these poor souls.
This video is wrong about the cause of setting and rising (occultation by/with the horizon)
Although perspective and angular resolution certainly play a role in the optical illusion, the chief cause of setting/rising is the density gradient in our air which tends to cause light from distant sources to curve convexly towards the surface.
If it were “all perspective” as it is popularly advertised by the flat earth psyop, then the sun (and boats etc.) would appear to shrink to a dot and then disappear. This is essentially a strawman that would-be-flat-earth-researchers are intended to swallow and repeat so that their opponents (the flat earth psyop) can make them look stupid when they repeat the false claim.
To anyone interested in this subject (for, against, neutral), please join us to exchange perspectives on flatearthresearch!
yes, it definitely not "all" perspective, as the occultation of the 2d background by the 3 d foreground is not addressed by some because the how and why of the earth being a plane of existence inside the magnetic vortex surrounding it is difficult enough concept for most to wrap their head around and there is a need to "keep it simple" so to speak, but that doesn't make it a psyop. One doesnt need to read an encyclopedia to understand why they love their kids, just sometimes a deeper understanding of how things work is helpful.
I agree, but just as (if not more) important as that - is to be correct. The statement that the sun only appears to set due to perspective is wrong.
If the sun actually set purely by perspective, it would shrink to a dot. It doesn’t. It goes down like a ship “over the horizon” and for the same reasons.
Encouraging people to believe and repeat this demonstrably incorrect statement is an attack on them from the flat earth psyop.
The real reason for the appearance of the sun setting/rising is due to refraction caused by the density gradient in our air.
just because someone is claiming something that is partially incorrect is not "proof" its a psyop, its just proof either they are trying to keep it simple or simply not well informed as possible. The Sun movement across the sky is 100% due to perspective, the reason it doesnt change size is due to the fact its always far away and you cannot perceived its depth, ever, the common tool for perceiving how far things are away ON OUR PLANE. Your claiming " the sun setting/rising is due to refraction caused by the density gradient in our air." is wrong, because it means u dont understand what refraction is. Refraction happens at a point where the medium changes, the horizon is neither a point nor a physical thing capable of doing that which you claim. When Light becomes "fuzzy and unclear" over distance, thats called atmospheric diffraction. The actual reason the sun appears to set is simply because the 2d background is occulted by the 3d foreground which ends at the "hor eye zone". So essentially your claiming something is wrong by not understanding what they are claiming and then asserting what you are claiming is correct when its easily proven wrong, now some would say that exactly the traditional recipe for how government shills work to influence gullible people, but i will hold back judgement to see how angry you get when shown your errors in logic.
I completely agree. It isn’t partially incorrect though - it is completely incorrect. The sun does not noticeably/perceptibly shrink in size as it sets. If perspective were the cause of the disappearance of the sun during sunset - it would shrink and get smaller until it disappeared. It would NOT set the way that large ships do.
I think we are generally in agreement here. The path the sun appears to take is significantly affected by perspective, but the movement of it is due to its movement. The sunset is NOT caused by perspective.
Right! The air (medium) through which the light travels is not uniform. It is a gradient. As the light from the sun travels through this density gradient it is curved convexly towards the ground due to refraction. The horizon is an optical illusion, and isn’t involved in the refraction. Perspective is the reason the sun appears to collide with the horizon in the distance, however - in reality - the height of the sun has not changed and though it seems like the rays of the sun are coming straight at you during sunset they are really traveling downwards from a great height through the density gradient which causes the optical illusion of “setting” (this is the same way it works with ships/stars - everything that “sets”)
It is certainly wrong to say that the reason for the sunset is perspective, or at best misleading. Your explanation sounds a little different than that, and you are correct that i do not understand it. It sounds like nonsense. The 3D occults the 2D? It’s all 3D... Can you explain this in any more detail, and more importantly can you demonstrate another example of this 3D occulting 2D on a smaller scale?
Some like me (though i don’t speculate on the source - government or otherwise)! Though, you argued directly against that in the first line of your comment ;)
Let me know if you still don’t agree / understand how refraction is (or at least conceivably could be) causing the illusion of setting, and how your view can be demonstrated/validated correct!
"it would shrink and get smaller until it disappeared. " wrong, things on the same plane as you get as smaller as they recede, THINGS WAY UP IN THE SKY DONT, BECAUSE U CANT PERCIEVE THEIR DEPTH - THE THIRD ASPECT OF 3D THOSE BEING height, WIDTH , AND DEPTH) IF you think this is wrong - simply try to find something ALREADY WAY UP HIGH IN THE SKY (PAST 10 MILES) AND SHOW IT GETTING SMALLER AS IT RECEDEDES? waiting, U CAN'T DO IT , CAUSE IT DOESNT HAPPEN
aIR DOESNT CAUSE REFRACTION, A DENSITY GRADIENT OVER DISTANCE = atmospheric DIFFRACTION. here'S an easy way to remember the difference, if its at a point, its refraction, if its over distance, its diffraction
"The 3D occults the 2D? It’s all 3D..." wrong, things in the sky (like stars {of which the sun technically is}) are only ever perceived in 2d, those two dimensions are called Right Ascension and Declination or Length and Width, not Depth , never depth. You cannot perceive depth of things really far away or really FAR UP. yOUR DEPTH PERCEPTION ENDS AT THE HORIZON, SO THINGS BEFORE IT ARE 3D, THINGS BEYOND IT ARE PERCIEVED AS 2D. sO THE 3D FOREGROUD OCCULTS THE OPAQUE 2D BACKGROUND AT THE HORIZON, THIS IS WHY THE SUN APPEARSD TO SET.
iT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DIDNT WATCH THE VIDEO, IM GURESSING BECAUSE YOU ARE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY AND DONT UNDERSTAND SPOKEN ENGLISH. wHERE ARE U FROM , CHINA?
DONT MIND MY CAPS LOCK BEING ON, MY KEYBOASRD IS BROKEN
Plane has nothing to do with it. Perspective occurs in all directions/dimensions. If something gets farther away from you, it will appear smaller... period, no exceptions whatsoever (under natural/normal circumstances - obviously magnification and such things can be used to counter/nullify that angular size difference)
It is true that it is harder to gauge the relative size of something in the sky (without fixed reference to compare it to), but yes we can perceive the apparent size difference of things in the sky (such as planes) as they recede as well.
As for the sun, it too changes size as it changes distance to us and this is measurable - even if it is difficult for us to perceive with the naked eye. Plane has nothing to do with it. The rules of optics work the same no matter which direction/dimension you look, or how far away things are.
As you said, any light traveling from one medium to another with a differing refraction index does refract! This includes air, which behaves as a fluid. Do you think refraction doesn’t happen in water too? Although gas and liquid are certainly different states of matter, they both act similarly - as fluids.
Not really, no. However there are physicists that agree with you that there is no significant difference between diffraction and refraction - they are one and the same. In my view diffraction is caused by light blocking/absorption/reflection and refraction is caused by altering the speed of the light wave. Refraction happens with frequencies of light where the medium (air) they are traveling through is largely transparent. Transparent things that cannot absorb/block/reflect light cannot diffract, but as i said - there are capable physicists and textbook authors that disagree with this view and declare that both are exactly the same. I think this is largely a semantical sinkhole. Wether we call the phenomenon of the light being curved convexly towards the ground as refraction or diffraction doesn’t change its reality at all.
That has to do with the distance to the object, its size, and the distance between our two eyes. It may appear 2D to us, but we can rest assured that like everything else in reality - it is, in fact, 3D. We don’t see it that way, but it is all the same. Do you disagree?
Sort of. I don’t exactly disagree, but the horizon (the distance limit of our vision through air) is NOT the same towards the horizon as it is towards the sky. The horizon is an optical illusion.
We can see farther than the distance to the horizon when looking through less air (i.e. looking up).
i think this is word salad nonsense. The “2D” background is still plainly visible as the sun sets. There is no “occulting” by the 3D world closer, nor is such a thing possible. The sun can, and does, go far enough away that the amount of atmosphere between us and it is too great for the light to directly reach us anymore (we call it night) - and is “occulted” (I would say blocked) by it. However, if this were the cause of the sunset the sun would never set. It would remain the same size and fade until too dim to see. The bottom of it and/or ships would never disappear.
Again, can you demonstrate this believed principle/phenomena on a smaller scale? If not, why not? It should be easy to make an apparatus with smaller eyes (or use a small child) much closer together to test and observe this in a scale test if it existed - right?
I did watch the video, but am happy to admit that i may well have not understood it.
Let’s assume you are correct - how can we observe this occulting phenomenon in a controlled repeatable way? I can demonstrate a mockup of my explanation, and although that does not mean that is for certain what is happening in reality - it is at least conceivable and demonstrable. It sounds like your explanation may not be demonstrable/testable, which makes it far less likely as a possibility.
“Plane has nothing to do with it.” - wrong “Perspective occurs in all directions/dimensions.” correct “If something gets farther away from you, it will appear smaller.” correct, something 1 foot away from you moving to 100 feet away will get smaller, but what if that thing is already 100 feet away from you and moves along as dimension that is not depth , let say width, should it still get smaller as it does so? No. Does this apparent size change with perspective last forever? No. Thats why thing in the sky are only refereed to in 2 dimensions , Right Ascension and Declination or Length and width, never depth. “we can perceive the apparent size difference of things in the sky (such as planes) as they recede as well. Nice baseless claim, please show me a shot of the iss crossing the sky with showing apparent size change. Cant do that , how bout a spy plane already at 15 miles high, plz i wont hold my breath while yuo make up crap. “any light traveling from one medium to another with a differing refraction index does refract” wrong, a slight density charge is not enough to cause refraction. Air does not cause any noticeable refraction, Lets say your viewing something from 3 miles away, and its fuzzy, thats not refraction, thats atmospheric diffraction, refraction is the distinct angling of light, when it YOUR PERCEPTION of light over distance, thats caused by atmospheric diffraction. “diffraction and refraction - they are one and the same.” wrong, refraction is the angling of light, Diffusion is the spreading out of light at a point, and diffraction is the spreading out of light over distance. “Wether we call the phenomenon of the light being curved convexly towards the ground as refraction or diffraction doesn’t change its reality at all.” Well i suppose in causal conversation it would matter but you making specific claims and using the globr explanation of “light being curved convexly towards the ground” due to refraction , when that is not whats going on at all. This slippery slope false explanation allows glob'rs to claim things are magically refracted up, when they are not.
When i say “perceived in 2d” that doesnt mean they are actually 2d, there is a limit to our perception. Thee fact we have two eyes doesn't change whether something is perceived in 3d or 2d, distance to object does, that's why its called “the diffraction Limit”, depth no longer diffracts, because that aspect of the reflected light is unable to reach our eyes.
“the horizon (the distance limit of our vision through air)” wrong, its not the limit to All Vision, its the Limit to depth, the other 2 dimensions of length and width are still perceivable.
Ill say this part again – things in the sky (like the Sun + moon) are only Perceived in 2d, when the sun meets the optical limit for perceiving Depth ( the optically rising non opaque ground your standing on that goes so until the horizon) that sky is then occulted or blocked or hidden from our view. Its actually so simple to get once you get it.
“ It sounds like your explanation may not be demonstrable/testable” not true, I've seen demonstration of this with camera showing this effect on objects that's say as few inches tall at 100 feet away, that the bottom becomes occulted or “disappears” not because it went over any physical curve, because our perception of depth ends
Also, it wonderful to talk to you, but lets end this on a good note, learn what you can, but i find your just repeating what you think you know try to make learning into a debate, thats not really helpful and im not into building a wall of misunderstanding, but i hope you rewatch the video a few times until you get it , gl.
I appreciate the Snoop Dogg narration. Still sounds like bs though.
if you think you can perceive depth of something thats even 5 miles in the sky, show it, u cant.
sigh...this flat earth shit again? lol
still praying at the alter of your Astro Priests - dats lame and kinda gay
Yes parrot. Because gravity makes flat earth totally dumb.
which gravity - mass attracts mass Newtonian or bending of spacetime Einsteinian?
The one that makes Ausies not fall of the earth.
I was being sarcastic in my reply on tulluck btw. But i see now that you did not get that.
Ausies live upside down to us? So you just assume the earth is a ball , and this magical force makes things stick to it. How juvenile, but ok, let m play along. All praise the earth daddy sucking me down! Did i do it right? I wish to join your cult of con-senses...
Scientists literally say they don't know how gravity works, that's why it's a theory about WHY it works not a law.
Why it works? I just works right? Why should there be a meaning behind it.
But it works because of mass, is what they've always told us. Now they dont know?
Anyway, the theory is wrong. There are to many holes in it, and for anything they cant explain they shove gravity in your face, cuz that alwayd has to do anything with everything right?
actual Scientists cant even define mass, its like asking a woke person what a women is, pathetic. And the idea that mass is attracting mass is a Newton thing that was superseded by Einstein with the bending of spacetime, but if space is a vacuum of nothing and time is a concept, can you demonstrate how you bend a concept of nothing? If you do, youll for sure win a nobel prize and end the crisis in Cosmology. Go for it!