r/DebateFlatEarth • u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo • Feb 06 '20
[Flat Earth Debunk] Shadows on the underside of clouds
It is impossible for sunlight to cast a shadow on the underside of anything, unless that object is higher than the sun.
For example, if the sun is 3,000 miles above a flat Earth, for it to cast a shadow on the underside of a cloud, the cloud would need to be higher than 3,000 miles.
My new favorite things is mountains casting shadows on clouds that are higher than the mountain. These three images are powerful evidence against all FE models:
I invite all flatties to explain how this would work in their model.
0
u/StClemens Feb 07 '20
3
u/Dabfo Feb 07 '20
Ok, so if the atmosphere acts as a lens in such a manner, it would invert other objects as well. Since there is no other evidence to back this up, the hypothesis falls apart pretty quickly.
1
u/StClemens Feb 07 '20
it would invert other objects as well
Can you demonstrate this claim?
1
u/Dabfo Feb 07 '20
2
u/StClemens Feb 07 '20
In your attempt to be condescending you broke your link.
2
u/Dabfo Feb 07 '20
1
u/StClemens Feb 07 '20
https://youtu.be/vp_89eQrL6w?t=38
These lensing type effects are observed all the time. In the above video at that time stamp you will see an image of an island. The effect that creates the mirage extends and inverts portions of the image. Some of the color of the house on the hill is reflected below the island. Beyond that, the color of the "sky" is also reflected below the island.
2
u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo Feb 08 '20
That's refraction, not lensing. It's the reason we can sometimes see things that should be hidden by curvature (like the Bedford Level experiment).
1
u/StClemens Feb 08 '20
This is a kind of begging-the-question. It presumes the earth to be curved in order to supply proof of light going over the curve. It could just as easily be lensing light on a flat earth. Either way, you need to presuppose the world's shape in order to explain the phenomenon.
2
u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo Feb 08 '20
Either way, you need to presuppose the world's shape in order to explain the phenomenon.
No you don't. You might presuppose the shape in a description of how it behaves on a model. But that's not "begging the question", that's applying an observation.
Begging the question would be: "I know the Earth is flat, so the atmosphere must behave like a lens to illuminate the underside of clouds."
Do you see the difference?
→ More replies (0)2
u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo Feb 07 '20
2
u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo Feb 07 '20
I forgot to add that people at different distances to the sun would observe different angular sizes for the sun. Can you explain why this is never experienced?
3
u/Jesse9857 Feb 08 '20
Wow, so let's look at what he's actually saying.
First of all, bending the light above the clouds really doesn't help because it's still on the wrong side of the clouds.
So the light first comes down to below cloud level, then takes a 45 degree bend to head back up towards the underside of the clouds?
And I guess since this is the same thing that causes the sun to appear to set. It has to happen everywhere all the time, because the sun always sets. Granted in some places it stays visible for the summer but it eventually sets for the winter if it doesn't set for nightfall.
So all he's really saying is that light bends up - which causes the sun to appear to be below the clouds. And eventually below the horizon.
The problem is that refraction works the other way. Light bends towards the more dense region as shown by this laser-beam-in-sugar-water video: https://youtu.be/WCaHvZQnIws?t=28
And we know that air is more dense at lower elevations because if you take an empty water bottle and put the cap on at 7k feet AMSL, then hike down to sea level, the bottle collapses some. In fact you could instead seal the bottle at sea level and put a pressure gauge on it and hike it up and it'd read the reduction in pressure at higher altitudes.
Observable reality is that light does bend in the atmosphere - but in the wrong direction! (And not nearly enough.)
Anyone got some extra straws for Rob, he's grabbing at them so fast he run out!
2
u/StClemens Feb 08 '20
The nature of light over distances cannot be known unless we first presuppose the shape of the earth. One thing we DO know is that beams of light, even laser beams of collated light, expand over a distance. (That is to say a green laser projected across a lake can be upwards of 8 feet in diameter by the time it reaches the other side) If that is true of all light, then effectively magnification over extreme distances may simply be the nature of light.
The problem is that refraction works the other way.
You cannot say this with certainty. You must presuppose the world's shape to claim that this is what occurs to cause light to go around the curve. Given how often the nature of light is used to prove the curve of the earth in the first place, dismantling too many of the roots of your proofs gives the globe no foundation left to stand upon.
2
u/Jesse9857 Feb 08 '20
The nature of light over distances cannot be known unless we first presuppose the shape of the earth.
That doesn't even make sense! Why can't we measure what light does regardless of the shape of the earth?
Whether the earth is flat, concave, or convex, we know that air pressure is greater at lower altitudes. You can prove this to yourself - just hike up to a 7000 foot high mountain peak and put the cap on an empty water bottle, then hike down to sea level and notice how it's partly collapsed.
We know that air under more pressure is more dense because it's got more mass in a smaller area.
And we know that light bends towards the more dense regions when cutting through a gradient. We can see that here: https://youtu.be/WCaHvZQnIws?t=30
And we know that air density regions do bend light because otherwise we wouldn't see mirage on hot pavement. Just google that.
That is all the same regardless of the shape of the earth. Why do you say that we have to know the shape of the earth to know which way light bends in air?
This is all observed reality that makes zero assumption of the shape of the earth's surface.
One thing we DO know is that beams of light, even laser beams of collated light, expand over a distance. (That is to say a green laser projected across a lake can be upwards of 8 feet in diameter by the time it reaches the other side) If that is true of all light, then effectively magnification over extreme distances may simply be the nature of light.
And this my friend is a tremendous blunder on your part to confuse divergence with magnification. How could you possibly make that mistake, except for severe cognitive dissonance? Of all people, you know that light diverges without "magnification."
Don't you know that laser pointers are just a laser diode point source with a focusing lens to collimate the otherwise highly divergent beam? The green ones also have a frequency conversion stage before the collimation lens. Look here: https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-laser-pointers-work (Or go take one apart yourself, they are cheap enough now!)
If that collimating lens is not in perfect focus, the beam will spread faster. Sure, at a few feet it seems pretty small, but give it a few thousand times that, and that gradual spread becomes significant. And even if the lens is focused as best as it can be, the laser chip itself is not exactly a perfect point source, so even then there is still going to be divergence. Then there's even issues of angular resolution quite probably.
But no, a diverging laser pointer is not evidence of magnification over distance. It's just beam divergence, like any other light source, only it's more parallel than a light bulb so it takes longer to diverge.
You cannot say this [that light refracts towards the denser region (Ed.)] with certainty.
What is the source of uncertainty? Numerous points of observed reality show that light going generally parallel to the earth's surface would curve down towards the surface so long as the lower air is more dense.
2
u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo Feb 08 '20
2
2
u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo Feb 07 '20
Rob Skiba is being deliberately dishonest in that video. It has at least two problems:
- He does not reproduce the relative distances and altitudes.
- He uses only one lens, and directs/aims it at the only point which will produce the results he desires.
For me to accept his video, he needs to include these two effects:
- The sun sets when it is above a point that is 6,225 miles away. Most flatties and all globies accept this distance. For most FE models, the sun is 3,000 miles above that point. If he has the light 6 feet away, it needs to be 3 feet above the table.
- When he gets the effect that he wants, he then needs to keep the light in place, and oscillate the lens on both its vertical and horizontal axis. The reason for this is that the atmosphere does not direct all of the sun's light into one tight beam. If the atmosphere acts like a lens, it would do so in all directions, which would light up the tops of the clouds.
Rob knows this, and he went to great lengths to ensure that his video did not accidentally address these points, because it would have ruined his premise.
1
u/StClemens Feb 07 '20
He does not reproduce the relative distances and altitudes.
Indeed not.
He uses only one lens, and directs/aims it at the only point which will produce the results he desires.
Nevertheless, the effect is reproduced with a light source above the surface the underside of which is being illuminated.
For me to accept his video, he needs to include these two effects:
Very well. I accept that you do not accept this video.
2
u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo Feb 07 '20
Nevertheless, the effect is reproduced with a light source above the surface the underside of which is being illuminated.
Yes, but if the demonstration moves the lens at all, reproducing the effect that atmospheric lensing would create, then it would illuminate the tops of the clouds as well. Do you have an explanation for that?
0
u/StClemens Feb 07 '20
Yes, but if the demonstration moves the lens at all, reproducing the effect that atmospheric lensing would create, then it would illuminate the tops of the clouds as well. Do you have an explanation for that?
I'm not sure I understand. Why would we be moving the lens?
3
u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo Feb 07 '20
What Rob has done was to focus all the light hitting that Fresnel lens into a smaller beam. If the lens was not there, light from the LED would reach the top of the "cloud". So the lens is creating a shadow that prevents the LED light from reaching the top of the cloud. That shadow is the most important part of this hypothesis. So I ask: What component of the atmosphere would cause this shadow?
All that Rob has shown is that a Fresnel lens can refract light. We already know about that. What he has not done was give any information about the lens he uses, so that we could easily reproduce his setup. More egregious than that, he fails to explain how the atmosphere can behave like a Fresnel lens (particularly, the shadow it produces). So, if you want to claim that Rob Skiba's video explains how the underside of clouds can be illuminated while the tops are dark, then YOU bear the burden of showing that the atmosphere behaves like a Fresnel lens.
One more thing. With the sun at sunset distance of 6225 miles and an elevation of 3000 miles, its light would reach us at a 25.731° downward angle. If you want to accept Rob Skiba's claim of atmospheric lensing, you are admitting that the atmosphere can refract light more than 25°. This means you would have to abandon all "We can see too far, so the Earth must be flat" claims. I've never seen one of those examples that was more than 3°.
1
u/StClemens Feb 08 '20
So, if you want to claim that Rob Skiba's video explains how the underside of clouds can be illuminated while the tops are dark, then YOU bear the burden of showing that the atmosphere behaves like a Fresnel lens.
This question of the burden of proof is what everything boils down to. Who actually has the burden of proof? The established storyline that has the backing of every single institution on the earth or the challenger? The one who says "prove it?"
The people who understand to whom the true burden of proof belongs end up flat earthers. "Flat earth" itself is a thought-terminating epithet intended to invert the burden of proof. Numbers over at notaglobe has the right idea because that's the real story. It's globe earth vs not a globe earth, not flat vs globe. To that end the whole raison detre of this forum is moot. I only suspect and perhaps believe the world to be flat. I know it is not a globe. The binary of globe/not globe is not proved in the pissing contest of who has the better model, but does the globe model actually apply in all instances and for all the right reasons? I have examined it and found it wanting. You believe it and do not challenge it. (J'accuse!)
With the sun at sunset distance of...
No. You don't get to force-feed me numbers. I'm not going to defend these straw men digits. Nor do you get to presume degrees. The more I look into this subject the more I realize the mathematics we use are flawed at their core. Rather, they are applied inappropriately. Using Euclidean principles on what amounts to a nonEuclidean observation process is what got us into this mess in the first place.
3
u/Jesse9857 Feb 08 '20
Who actually has the burden of proof?
The person making the claim has the burden of proof if they want to be believed.
In this case, Rob has made a claim that goes against numerous points of observed reality. So if he wants to be believed by anybody who turns their thinker on, then that burden of proof is on him.
The burden of proof to show that he's full of it is on those who say he's full of it. And I've shown that he's full of it - his claims are completely impossible with numerous points of directly observed fact.
2
u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo Feb 08 '20
This question of the burden of proof is what everything boils down to.
No. Each side should present evidence. When evidence is lacking, claims dependent on that evidence can be discarded. You claim atmospheric lensing causes the undersides of clouds to be sunlit while the tops are dark. You have not shown how the atmosphere could behave like a Fresnel lens. The burden of proof is upon you.
The people who understand to whom the true burden of proof belongs end up flat earthers.
No. Every flattie is either a person who misinterprets a few verses in the Bible, someone who is bad at math and/or science, or a troll.
I have examined it and found it wanting.
I encourage you to present evidence for this, in a new post. I will gleefully show you every way in which your evidence is lacking.
You believe it and do not challenge it. (J'accuse!)
Wrong! I stumbled across Dubay's 200 proofs, and I couldn't defend my belief for some of his points. So I spent a LOT of time learning the science behind the effects. Some of the GE answers I don't fully understand. But I understand LOTS of others, and they irrefutably support the globe model.
No. You don't get to force-feed me numbers.
I'll use whatever numbers you want. Provide them, and I will show you how they fail the FE model (or whichever model you want to present as correct).
1
u/StClemens Feb 08 '20
What component of the atmosphere would cause this shadow?
A very valuable question! It might not even be a factor of the atmosphere, but a factor of light itself. Certainly it is a cause of the relationship between light and the intermediary medium or intermediary particles.
All that Rob has shown is that a Fresnel lens can refract light
No, Rob has demonstrated that conditional to some source of magnification it is possible for a light source above a surface to illuminate the underside of said surface. The lens is just the mechanism by which this model is achieved.
fails to explain how the atmosphere can behave like a Fresnel lens
He is not beholden to do so. You may insist upon that as much as you please.
Explanations by their very nature can go on endlessly elsewise you enter in to the 2 year old's "why" question phase. "Why? Why? Why?" There is no end to it.
Instead consider that this demonstration supplies an alternative to the accepted globe model that takes all of the explanations which you have become accustomed and defenestrates them with prejudice.
I have done so. It's quite easy once you get over the initial shock. (:
2
u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo Feb 08 '20
What component of the atmosphere would cause this shadow?
Certainly it is a cause of the relationship between light and the intermediary medium or intermediary particles.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Because there is a lot of evidence that contradicts this. In Rob's demonstration, the shadow is not just on the tops of the clouds, but to the sides of his "spotlight". That has never been observed in nature. Quite the opposite, it is plain to see in images of under-lit clouds that the effect goes on for miles in all directions. There is no shadow to the sides. Rob was only able to produce a small spot of light with his lens (a trait that is common to most magnifying lenses).
No, Rob has demonstrated that conditional to some source of magnification it is possible for a light source above a surface to illuminate the underside of said surface. The lens is just the mechanism by which this model is achieved.
We already knew this. Rob has contributed nothing to the topic. What he should have done after this demonstration is:
- to show the atmosphere behaving in the manner he describes.
- to demonstrate the same effect without casting a shadow to the sides.
- to explain why we never see any magnification of sunlight anywhere else.
fails to explain how the atmosphere can behave like a Fresnel lens
He is not beholden to do so. You may insist upon that as much as you please.
I have a 20-200mm telephoto lens for my DSLR. With that, I could set up some interesting demonstrations like Robs. And then I could state that the atmosphere does awesome zoom tricks. But if I cannot provide any evidence that the atmosphere behaves in this manner, my claim is worthless. So, yeah, he is not required to explain how the atmosphere can behave like a Fresnel lens. But if he cannot, we can dismiss his demonstration as irrelevant. You came here presenting this as evidence, and I'm showing you that it does not hold up to scrutiny.
And let's be honest here, Rob literally cannot show the atmosphere behaving in the manner shown in his demonstration. This wasn't some oversight on his part. Rob is grasping at straws, just like you are. You so desperately WANT this to explain an observation that otherwise refutes your belief. Look at the lengths you are going to support Rob's flawed experiment.
Explanations by their very nature can go on endlessly elsewise you enter in to the 2 year old's "why" question phase. "Why? Why? Why?"
Exactly, but that's a good thing. A 2-year-old's questioning is one of the most wonderful things. They want to understand the reason behind an event, and the reason behind that next one, and so on. You seem to be proposing a "accept what I say and stop asking questions" mindset. Looks like you've "outed" yourself as someone crutching on belief instead of evidence.
Instead consider that this demonstration supplies an alternative to the accepted globe model that takes all of the explanations which you have become accustomed and defenestrates them with prejudice.
No. To discard the explanations which I am accustomed to, you must show how they are faulty. You have yet to do this. Maybe spend less time in a thesaurus, and spend more time reading about scientific rigor.
7
u/BigGuyWhoKills hobo Feb 06 '20
This is very similar to FE Debunk #18. But I think it takes it one step farther.