Sun apparently shrinking as it sets

[Inti]

Here is a section of a flat earth video by Eric Dubay. I've been creating a debunking site for this at http://roundearthsense.blogspot.co.uk/


At this point, (around 29 minutes, duration around 30 seconds, link/video below starts at the correct spot) the video shows a clip of the setting sun, in which the sun seems to get much smaller as it sets. This is not something I've ever seen or heard described, but it is apparently consistent in some ways with what passes for a model by Mr Dubay ( a disk earth with sun and moon spiralling above it,)


I'd be interested if anyone can

a) Identify the source of this video clip and

b) Explain what is actually happening here

c) Explain with evidence how the effect has been faked

Please notice that it's the video visuals rather than the voiceover claim that I am addressing.

 

[Trailspotter]

It is not the Sun is shrinking, it is the Sun's glare diminishes. One needs to use a dense filter, like welders glass, to remove the glare in order to see the actual diameter of the Sun. In this video it approximately corresponds to the diameter of the lens flare below (encircled). As the Sun sets, the flare gets dimmer, but its diameter remains the same:

PS I got a similar effect in my time lapse video of sunset (attached)

 

[Trailblazer]

A simple way to show this would be to film the sun, with the surrounding glare, and pass a dense filter in front of the lens to show the size of the actual sun.

 

[Mick West]

You can also use the "offset refection" trick to get a real image of the sun alongside the giant flared image.

 

[M Bornong]

Side by side sunset with and without filter.

 

[Henk001]

I took some pictures a few days ago, first without, second with a solar filter. The effect of oversaturation (glare) is very clear

 

[Henk001]

At the same day I photographed the sun shortly after sunrise, and again at noon (with filter). The camera settings were identical. The apparent diameter of the sun is exactly the same

 

[Sagittarius]

I thought the opposite was true - that the sun increased in apparent size as it sets, (or rises).

 

[Henk001]

I thought the opposite was true - that the sun increased in apparent size as it sets, (or rises).

It clearly doesn't, as shown above.

 

[Trailblazer]

You can also check the size of the sun image to see if it's "correct".

Here is a photo showing the small green lens-flare image of the sun familiar to anyone who takes iPhone photos.



That was taken on an iPhone 6 which has a field of view (along the long side) of about 63.5 degrees.

The image height is 3264 pixels. The diameter of the sun image is about 31 pixels (it's slightly smeared out, so not exact).

So the angular diameter of the sun is:

31/3264 x 63.5 = 0.60º.

The accepted angular diameter of the sun as viewed from Earth is about 32 arcminutes, or 0.53º.

Given that the lens flare image appears to bleed/smear out slightly, that is pretty good agreement.

 

[Sagittarius]

It clearly doesn't, as shown above.

I know it doesn't really increase in size - I was referring to the huge, often flattened, sun or moon we often see low on the horizon, when either rising or setting. It looks huge to the naked eye, but it's just an effect of refraction.

 

[Trailblazer]

I know it doesn't really increase in size - I was referring to the huge, often flattened, sun or moon we often see low on the horizon, when either rising or setting. It looks huge to the naked eye, but it's just an effect of refraction.

But if you measure it, the apparent size really doesn't (usually) increase. It's not refraction, it's just an optical illusion.

 

[Balance]

I know it doesn't really increase in size - I was referring to the huge, often flattened, sun or moon we often see low on the horizon, when either rising or setting. It looks huge to the naked eye, but it's just an effect of refraction.

That refraction you mention, (optically) reduces it's height rather than increase it's width.

This raises the apparent position of the bottom edge more than the top, reducing the apparent height of the solar disk. Its width is unaltered

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

 

[Sagittarius]

But if you measure it, the apparent size really doesn't (usually) increase. It's not refraction, it's just an optical illusion.

Oh, I'm aware of that - the moon illusion and all that.

I just thought the 'squashing' or flattening you sometimes see, as the sun is setting, was due to refraction.

 

[Sagittarius]

That refraction you mention, (optically) reduces it's height rather than increase it's width.

This raises the apparent position of the bottom edge more than the top, reducing the apparent height of the solar disk. Its width is unaltered

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Yes, I've no problem with that. It was the bizarre nature of the claim that the sun shrinks to a point when setting, in the opening video, that got me involved in this thread - to the naked eye, the exact opposite happens as the sun sets.

 

[Inti]

Side by side sunset with and without filter.

Excellent - just what i was looking for. Thanks to you and to everyone who commented.

 

[Inti]

I thought the opposite was true - that the sun increased in apparent size as it sets, (or rises).

Yes, that's sometimes called the Moon illusion, because it's easier to see with the moon, I suppose. It's a kind of framing effect, I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion

But that's different from this effect.

 

[Inti]

Side by side sunset with and without filter.

What I found surprising about this is the small angular diameter of the sun, compared to the subjective appearance. That's what threw me off when I looked at the original flat-earth video, and made me suspect trickery.

 

[Chew]

Your pinky nail held at arm's length is about twice as wide as the Sun.

 

[Sagittarius]

Your pinky nail held at arm's length is about twice as wide as the Sun.

Amazing how tiny it is, isn't it! I wonder if a pinky would also cover the earth, if we were looking at the earth from the moon (hypothetically, without spacesuit gloves on!), or would we need to graduate to our middle finger or thumb?

 

[Mick West]

Amazing how tiny it is, isn't it! I wonder if a pinky would also cover the earth, if we were looking at the earth from the moon (hypothetically, without spacesuit gloves on!), or would we need to graduate to our middle finger or thumb?

The Earth is quite a bit bigger than the Moon, you'd need 3 or 4 fingers to cover it if you were standing on the Moon.

 

[Sagittarius]

The Earth is quite a bit bigger than the Moon, you'd need 3 or 4 fingers to cover it if you were standing on the Moon.

Yes, you're probably right!

 

[Inti]

Your pinky nail held at arm's length is about twice as wide as the Sun.

That's a striking way to look at it.

 

[Raymond]

Here is a streetlight that is bigger in the night than in the day. The same camera effect as with the shrinking sun.

 

[David Ridlen]

Dazzathecameraman has a YT series on this subject, thoroughly explaining the correct way to shoot and measure the angular size of the Sun -


Source: https://youtu.be/W37oieAEDiM?list=PLX6iy03kvnk7TrOqsKycD5l3_DfjnbbQc&t=192

 

[Akantor]

Side by side sunset with and without filter.

For some reason, whenever I try to watch that video it doesn't load.

 

[M Bornong]

For some reason, whenever I try to watch that video it doesn't load.

Unfortunately, the owner of that video has put it on private. I think it was a Dazza the Cameraman video.

 

[deirdre]

Unfortunately, the owner of that video has put it on private. I think it was a Dazza the Cameraman video.

it plays for me.. is it playing for you now?

 

[Sagittarius]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W37oieAEDiM&feature=youtu.be&list=PLX6iy03kvnk7TrOqsKycD5l3_DfjnbbQc&t=192


It works for me. Does that link help?

 

[Akantor]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W37oieAEDiM&feature=youtu.be&list=PLX6iy03kvnk7TrOqsKycD5l3_DfjnbbQc&t=192


It works for me. Does that link help?

Now it's working. Thanks.