Crepuscular angles and the flat idea.

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
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.

 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
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?




But if you turned round 180 degrees after taking that photo you would see crepuscular rays. The shadows are parallel, passing overhead, so they appear widest overhead and converge at both horizons.

There is no difference between crepuscular and anticrepuscular rays, any more than there is between the train tracks stretching out in front of you and those behind you. It's just rarer to be able to see them all the way to the horizon opposite the sun.

The shadows will only appear parallel on a photo if the camera is looking either straight up or straight down. The photo from space has the camera pointing at an angle, so the shadows appear to converge. I think that's what you are saying, but calling them "anticrepuscular rays" is rather confusing because that term applies to viewing the same shadows from the ground so that they appear to converge opposite the sun.
 

Henk001

Senior Member.
We are getting in a bit of a semantic debate here. I think that the pictures that Wolf showed are very illustrative of what may be (a part of) the explanation for the fact that the shadows are not exactly parallel.
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
But if you turned round 180 degrees after taking that photo you would see crepuscular rays. The shadows are parallel, passing overhead, so they appear widest overhead and converge at both horizons.

There is no difference between crepuscular and anticrepuscular rays, any more than there is between the train tracks stretching out in front of you and those behind you. It's just rarer to be able to see them all the way to the horizon opposite the sun.

The shadows will only appear parallel on a photo if the camera is looking either straight up or straight down. The photo from space has the camera pointing at an angle, so the shadows appear to converge. I think that's what you are saying, but calling them "anticrepuscular rays" is rather confusing because that term applies to viewing the same shadows from the ground so that they appear to converge opposite the sun.
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 right. The camera pointing at an angle doesn't make the shadows appear to converge or diverge. It's the observer's position that does so.

The important part about the angle of the camera is that it can be difficult to tell from a photo of relatively ambiguous objects like clouds if the camera was angled or not. An angled shot can look like a straight down shot.

And in the case of the photo Abishua was asking about... He was assuming the cloud shadows would be parallel in the photo because he was assuming it was taken looking straight down. I say the cloud shadows are not exactly parallel as he expected, because the camera was not pointing straight down. That's the simplest form I can put that in.

I then showed a cropped portion of a photo taken from a larger photo to prove that the illusion of the straight down angle can be just that; a seductive illusion.

(Incidentally, when I first linked to that photo, I also assumed that the camera was pointing straight down and the shadows were parallel. It wasn't until Abishua pointed out that they aren't that we took a second look, so kudos to him.)






Of little consequence but interesting to think about...


If you do have to be on the ground to see a crepuscular ray, exactly at what point above the ground does a crepuscular ray become not a crepuscular ray?


After some thought here's my answer:

The anti-solar point is defined by the observer and is a point on the celestial sphere opposite to the sun from the observer's viewpoint. You don't have to be on the ground for that to be true, and the anti-solar point doesn't have to be in the sky from your viewpoint.

Crepuscular and anti-crepuscular rays are created by the contrast between the brighter areas where the sunlight is being scattered (Rayleigh scattering) and the darker areas of the shadows. The fundamental issue in our discussion is that they are undistorted. In the case of anti-crepuscular rays, they aim directly at the anti-solar point on the celestial sphere as defined by our viewpoint.

But if we are above the clouds and seeing shadows cast by the clouds on the earth's surface, the shadows will be distorted and will not point directly to the anti-solar point. It's not the same situation.

This is the question. In this photo below, are we seeing shadows and rays in the atmosphere, or are we seeing the shadows of clouds cast on the earth's surface? If the former I say that these are still anti-crepuscular rays and they are aimed at the anti-solar point on the celestial sphere as defined by the observer's position, even though that position is in space. That's kind of a mind-bender but it would have to be true.

If they are shadows cast by the clouds on the earth's surface then they are mostly aimed at the anti-solar point but are distorted and are not anti-crepuscular rays.


Regardless, the observer's position determines whether they appear to converge or diverge. Whether they are aimed directly at the anti-solar point or not won't change that.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
This is the question. In this photo below, are we seeing shadows and rays in the atmosphere, or are we seeing the shadows of clouds cast on the earth's surface? If the former I say that these are still anti-crepuscular rays and they are aimed at the anti-solar point on the celestial sphere as defined by the observer's position, even though that position is in space. That's kind of a mind-bender but it would have to be true.

If they are shadows cast by the clouds on the earth's surface then they are mostly aimed at the anti-solar point but are distorted and are not anti-crepuscular rays.
Yes, they are shadows in the atmosphere. But there is no distinction between crepuscular rays and anticrepuscular rays. They are just shadows.

upload_2016-11-28_11-44-9.png

A person on the ground where the red dot is would see (what we call) crepuscular rays if they looked towards the sun (red arrow).

upload_2016-11-28_11-46-47.png

If they turned around (purple arrow) they would see (what we call) anticrepuscular rays.




We think of crepuscular rays "diverging" and anticrepuscular rays "converging" because the light is travelling from the sun, but in fact if you just think of them as lines then they are still meeting in the distance at the vanishing point in exactly the same way.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
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 defined by their viewpoint. The viewpoint of each observer defines these things for that observer. Nothing you're saying is in opposition to what I said.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They are crepuscular rays as defined by the viewpoint of the camera on the ISS that took this specific photo.
But you kind of forcing a new usage of the term there, and it's not helping the clarity of the explanation, and will almost certainly confuse people. Saying they "are" anti-crepuscular or crepuscular rays implies that they will stay that way, and from the POV of the ISS that can change from second to second.

They are just parallel rays and shadows.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
A quick drawing I did (already explained by others).
If you were in this photo, and turn your head to the right or left, the vertical yellow lines would look even more incorrect.
rays_perspective.jpg

Below, is one video/test some people are using to claim that ALL the sun's rays should be seen as vertical.
The problem with this test is that it only uses a distance of about 8 feet, when in reality, the sun's rays are seen at a distance of miles.
This test is scaled incorrectly to actually notice the effects of perspective.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Steve Funk Beams of Light Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
TheoryQED El ROsario UFO spawning smaller UFOs- Filmed from two angles simultaneously [CGI] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Rory Calculator for viewing angles Tools for Investigating and Debunking 12
Rory Flat Earth debunked by measuring angles to the sun Flat Earth 36
Mick West Demonstrating Spherical Excess, Spherical Angles on the Surface of the Earth Flat Earth 5
J Claim sun paths prove flat earth Flat Earth 41
J Are sun shadows only possible on a flat earth? Flat Earth 5
Mick West Flat Earth and Refraction with Oil Platforms Hillhouse and Habitat Flat Earth 5
Code-Beta 300 miles visibility on Antartica? Flat Earth 2
H Illusions of Curvature - RC Boat Hidden on Small Pond Flat Earth 10
M Bornong Flat Earth vs Oblate Spheroid: Earthquakes Flat Earth 3
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Bunkmeister Cosmonaut Miroslaw Hermaczewski allegedly says earth is flat - [joke] Flat Earth 10
Mick West TFTRH #29 - Geoff: Everything is a Hoax, The Earth Might Be Flat Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Cassi O Google Maps Measure Distance Using Great Circle Flat Earth 0
Mick West TFTRH #14: Rory – Flat Earth Debunking and Spiritual Journeys Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Wiggles Refraction Variations Over Water to Bell Island Flat Earth 27
Mick West TFTRH #8 - Sasha: Chatting with a Flat Earther Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 66
Wiggles I could have spiralled into flat earth belief. Escaping The Rabbit Hole 36
Mick West Demonstrating the Curve of the Earth with observations of Beachy Head from Worthing Flat Earth 38
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Qulaey Explained: 17.61 Mile Mirror Flash Supposedly Proves Flat Earth [Refraction] Flat Earth 5
Mick West Why Flat Earth Laser Tests are Misleading Flat Earth 13
Rory Claim: footage of Great South Bay Bridge supports flat earth Flat Earth 11
Rory How can we explain perspective calculations simply? Flat Earth 39
chrono117 How to Debunk Flat Earth Without Relying on NASA or Photos Flat Earth 42
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
T Observations of a Wind Farm Over the Curve of The Earth Flat Earth 0
Mendel Homemade Gyrocompass finds North by Spin Flat Earth 0
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
tadaaa "Behind the Curve" - Documentry on Flat Earthers Flat Earth 12
Rory Earth curve calculator for obstructions Tools for Investigating and Debunking 9
Rory Explained: How Mount Rainier helps demonstrate the shape of the globe Flat Earth 38
Rory Unidentified "space vehicle" Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Mick West Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
edby View across Utah Lake Flat Earth 34
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Neil Obstat Claim: zooming in on setting sun proves flat earth Flat Earth 23
Mick West Earth's Radius Calculator (from the amount a distant object is obscured) Tools for Investigating and Debunking 0
Whitebeard Quick and easy demonstration of the shape of the Earth Flat Earth 7
I Nathan Oakley's Flat Earth "Debates". Flat Earth 69
Rory Recreating the Bedford Level Experiment Flat Earth 8
danno Using a very long water level to measure Earth's curvature Flat Earth 16
qed Third of millennials NOT convinced Earth is round Flat Earth 27
Mick West Debunking Guidelines for: "Convex Earth - The Documentary" Flat Earth 0
Nth Claim: 146 Mile Microwave Transmission Proves Flat Earth Flat Earth 26
Benjamin Moore Explained: Why Earth Has A Magnetic Core Even Though the core is Molten Metal Flat Earth 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top