Controlled Opposition

submitted by zyxzevn from media.conspiracies.win

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]CreditKnifeMan 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

"Flat Earthers" are retards or shills.

I agree.

The one thing that occasionally bugs me is when the sun's rays shine through the clouds, and there's an obvious angle in the direction of the rays.

Doesn't seem like it's +90 million miles from that angle.

I've read the crepuscular rays argument.

The sun is not "below the horizon" in this image. I've taken similar photos myself.

I can't make sense if it. IDK man.

Edit: /u/zyxzevn you're as scientifically literate as anyone here.
Do you have an explanation for this one?

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Light there is scattering through any given openings in the clouds. If you were to take the camera's position back further (as if in a 3D editor, earth land removed, zoomed back from cloud cover shadowing the bigger picture), it would no longer be a surprise where the sun is actually located: i.e. not at the visual convergence (optical deception) of some particular visible beams through some particular clouds.

Concentrated light is easily visually misleading. Beams are often not obvious in their exact origin depending on what they're traveling through and where they can exit and reflect on, depending on the intensity of the light reaching all particular angles, depending on where you're receiving the light (viewing it from), and then add to that the factor of how your camera (or eyes) are capturing light (what light you can see, what is captured to your senses and what is shadowed and blinded). Reductive example of reflection and refraction for one example of how light can be misleading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kBOqfS0nmE

[–]CreditKnifeMan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The example you provided shows the bending of light due to a a material's index of refraction property, and the light that is reflected/refracted at the materials surface.

If the light was generated by a source that is 90 million miles away, then the light should all travel from the same direction.
Each of the solar rays would be parallel.

There should not be a convergence point for the light. But the rays in the given example have an obvious convergence point.

The sun is not below the horizon.

To my knowledge, refracted rays would not converge on the original light source; per your example.

I'm not a flat earth fan, or supporter.
This obvious and widely recognized solar phenomena is unsettling.

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Interesting article about it:

Archive: https://archive.ph/4EURk

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/09/22/ask-ethan-why-arent-rays-of-sunshine-parallel/

You might suspect that clouds are like prisms or lenses, diverging or refracting the light beams and causing them to spread out. But that's not actually the case; the clouds themselves absorb and re-emit the light pretty evenly in all directions, which is why they're not transparent.

Then goes on to say

It's only where the clouds don't absorb most-or-all of the light that you get the sunbeam effect. As it turns out, these rays actually are, to the best we can measure, truly parallel lines, consistent with the Sun being extremely far away. If you found some rays of sunlight that were directed neither towards you nor away from you, but perpendicular to your line-of-sight, you'd observe completely parallel sunbeams. ... ... ... The reason you have a beam at all is because of the perspective of the surrounding shadows, and our eyes' ability to pick out the relative brightness of direct sunlight against a surrounding backdrop of relative darkness. The reason the rays appear to have a diverging shape is because of perspective, and the fact that these truly parallel rays of light are land closer to us than their point-of-origin, way back at the bottoms of the clouds. The Sun's rays really are parallel, but unless they're coming in perpendicular to you, they won't appear to be so. That's simply what it looks like when you view parallel lines as they recede away from you.

So the part I mentioned about "what's shadowed or blinded" hitting your eye is a main part of it combined with perspective.

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That doesn't explain the demonstrably differing angles of the solar rays; converging on the sun, which is not at or near the horizon.
These rays aren't shadowed.

Also the "paint of origin" isn't a point. It's a giant ball of radiating light in the sky.

There should be 0.00 degrees of angle between rays from a source that is 90 million miles away.

Why aren't there more scientific articles dedicated to this?

It doesn't make sense.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Perspective.

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

^

Anything seemingly "parallel" will appear very different (not parallel) if you're viewing it at position of one of the ends, then add in much of it being shadowed/blocked. The difference the side image shows (in the article) is a good example of the other perspective that makes it look logical. The small portion of light emanating from the sun that hits the tiny speck that is Earth wouldn't exactly be parallel (light would be both converging and diverging at the points it's hitting Earth, I assume), although it's close enough considering the vast distance.

/u/CreditKnifeMan

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Re-read your linked Wikipedia article...

" Loosely, the term crepuscular rays is sometimes extended to the general phenomenon of rays of sunlight that appear to converge at a point in the sky, irrespective of time of day. "

Also perspective and bonus

[–]CreditKnifeMan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I'm familiar with perspective, and convergence, etc.

The image with the sun has two convergence points. And the sun is a hidden horizon?

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I'm familiar with perspective, and convergence, etc.

Yet you don't seem to understand optics, three dimensional space, nor imagery.

3 Vanishing Points left right up.

4 Vanishing Points, up down left right.

4 Vanishing Points, north south east west.

You can't have more than 6 Vanishing Points (illustrated) in perspective, also known as 3D panorama or 360x360 panorama.

However...

The sun is neither a horizon or a vanishing point, but it is in the seemingly infinite distance and may seem like one.

You could have as many light sources as you like, similarly radiant, close or far.

The image with the sun has two convergence points.

Impossible.

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Really? Drawings, and panoramic images?

Using similar logic, I could make a triangle with 3 90 degree angles, adding up to 270 degrees inside a triangle, as they wrap around a sphere.

This is a 3D projection on a 2D surface, and there shouldn't be multiple convergence points.

Let's see an unadulterated photo that has:

  • a horizon convergence point
  • A separate and distinct convergence point

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It's not about being unadulterated - it's about what is included in the image frame from a perspective (influenced by the lens, from normal, to wide-angle, to 360o ). I found simplified images to make it clear to illustrate what is commonly understood to everyone else.

Don't look at how the image is created or what's in the image. Just look at the various examples of PERSPECTIVE to understand the optics and "illusions" of 2D perspective captured from 3D.

This is a 3D projection on a 2D surface, and there shouldn't be multiple convergence points.

FALSE.

I am a professional artist, 3D computer animator, and creative director. I know quite a bit about perspective, lighting, and optics. If you can't wrap your head around it, that's on you. Flat Earthers have a terrible time with basic physics too. I am miserable at a myriad of topics.

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Stop moving around quickly just to be safe. Roads are the ultimate trap.

Draw lines over beams that should be along a parallel path:

Obstruct the view if you want, but you better watch out:

Continuing forward ends in annihilation very shortly. This is clear. How could it be? It can't be. That's how. Consequently, I hypothesize that we can't move around and space on "Earth" doesn't exist. Just think. If elites can pull off fooling everyone to think we can move around, yet we can't as evidenced by the photos, there's no lie they can't pull off! They are exercising the ultimate power over people. It's making me very mad. This is the deepest level. Moving-around cucks don't get it. They're mentally enslaved. Let's make waking people up about this mind-blowing truth one of our primary missions.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Stop moving around quickly just to be safe.

Paralysis in fear is the contemporary prescription.

I hypothesize that we can't move around...

IFIFY:
I hypnotize that we can't move around...

Moving-around cucks don't get it.

Trudeau pretends to travel everywhere, while pretending to keep us trapped in Canada. It's fifth dimensional chess.

Let's make waking people up about this mind-blowing truth one of our primary missions.

"Troof bong." ~ d3rr

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/d8v5ncHxIWs