Search results

Yes, this is all obvious. They are crepuscular rays as defined by the viewpoint of the camera on the ISS that took this specific photo. Yes, other observers in other places would see them differently, and each observer would also have a unique anti-solar point on the celestial sphere as...

Yes, everything is defined by observer position. My point about cropping the photo is that it doesn't change the nature of the photo. The camera was in the position it was in. If you go back to my post I'll think you'll see that. But that was a side note. I don't think that last bit is...

I do understand what you mean by the anti-solar point. But doesn't a shadow cast by an object below your elevation also aim toward the anti-solar point? Are the shadows in this photo aiming toward the anti-solar point? I really don't know.

I don't know if that's it. I won't speculate anymore; but just ask for clarification. But I can respond to what you're saying. If we built a space elevator on the same spot on which the photographer was standing in that photo of anti-crepuscular rays and kept the camera pointing the same...

I don't understand. It's a cropped section from a photo showing anti-crepuscular rays. If I cropped a section from this photo wouldn't the cropped section also be showing anti-crepuscular rays?

I'd better explain something else. This looks as if the camera is looking straight down and the clouds are to the left of the camera. But they aren't. This is either a cropped section of a larger photo, or the camera is simply tilted but we don't notice the tilt. The clouds are actually to...

I suspect this is the problem: These are not crepuscular rays. They are anti-crepuscular rays. These are crepuscular rays. Notice that these shadows are diverging. It's simply a matter of camera position relative to the sun and the objects casting the shadows. In the first photo...

The largest image seems to be one quarter of the frame wide so very roughly about 0.4 degrees. About the size of a full moon. So if it were a plane that size it would be distant enough that you wouldn't necessarily hear throttled back jet engines.

I edited my post, as I am wont to do, and you replied to my original crummy post. At each point, what was the angular size to the naked eye and elevation in degrees above the horizon? What direction were you facing and what direction was it going? Where were you exactly? Best to show us a map.

Let's establish the angular size (not absolute size and absolute distance). How many full moons or fractions of a full moon would cover it as you saw it? And altitude above the horizon: How many degrees above the horizon? In other words, at each point, what was the angular size and elevation...

D'oh! Corrected!

As Mick previously said, we've been mixing two issues here in this thread - and I was one of the prime culprits. 1. The Moon Tilt Illusion. 2. The Moon Phase Problem. It's important to keep them separate and I apologize for not doing so. But photos with the sun-illuminated ball and the moon...

I'd like to get a larger image of the moon. The YT video in the OP was uploaded on 4/26/16. There was a waning gibbous moon (84% illuminated) that day. The sun and moon positions match a local time of 6:30 a.m. DST in Ann Arbor, MI on that day. We just passed that phase of the moon 2-3 days...

There's an experiment we can all try that will demonstrate that sunlight and both the moon phase and terminator angle really do go together. Put a ball on a stick, use a zoom lens, back off from the ball/stick, get the ball and the moon reasonably close together in the frame. I promise that...

Yes, that, and it's pure speculation for the joy of speculation, as far as I can tell. Number two is a model concocted by the more old fashioned, traditional type of flat earthers. Number two is more popular among the new wave flat earthers. It's purpose: 1. To explain moon phases on a flat...

They claim that the moon is self-luminous. The phases of the moon are completely independent of the sun and sunlight. That moonlight cools while sunshine heats is "proof" that moonlight has an independent and mysterious nature and is not reflected sunlight. They further assume that, for some...

But here's why neither a spherical nor a flat disk moon could work on a flat earth: https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-simple-debunking-by-the-moons-appearance.t7358/#post-181049

A video about the Ames room illusion: The brain has to resolve ambiguities and in doing so it uses all sorts of assumptions... about the world. And because it uses all these assumptions... you can also trick the visual system. If you train yourself to see the sun as much farther away than...

As I said before your eye is assuming a close sun. You are assuming that the orange line between the sun and moon is parallel to the earth's surface. But the sun is much more distant than the moon. The orange line is on a big slant. I'll give you an example of what I mean. This is an "Ames...

This illustrates the problem the FE believers are having with the earth-moon-sun system model. They are assuming a sun and moon at an equal distance from the earth. If the sun were at a position just off the screen to the right, the moon terminator would not make sense as we see it in the sky...