No Sun disk visible in these Sydney sunrises

[john666]

Cameras have very limited dynamic range compared to the human eye. A sun which appears yellow/red to the eye can look white to the camera because the brightness levels are clipping. If the scene were exposed to capture the changing colour of the solar disc, all the other scenery would be black/silhouette only. Also, (at least in my neck of the woods) most days there is not enough atmospheric haze/dust to make the sun appear red at sunset.

You are wrong.
The sun disk is always the most orange-reddish part of the sunrise/sunset.

"Camera brightness levels" will never cause the red to turn into white.
Big forest fires are always much more brighter then the sun near the horizon, and yet you never see the footage of forest fires looking white.

Also from my experience, the more clearer the day, the more reddish the sunset.

[john666]

Reykjavik is outside the arctic circle so the sun is always below the horizon at midnight. In summer the sun does a big arc around the sky, almost a full circle around you, like the girl said, starting and ending in a roughly northerly direction. Within the arctic circle during the summer solstice the sun gets to do a complete circuit around you without ever dipping below the horizon. If you are not at the north pole it will dip low and high, but directly at the north pole it will stay at pretty much the same height over the 24 hours. The video and the girl's description are in full agreement.

The video and the women's description are in absolute contradiction to each other.

The more north you get, the lower the sun disk is, irrespective of the time of the year.
THAT IS HER DESCRIPTION

Your description, is that during the summer solstice day the sun disk will never go lower then the horizon line.

Your statement and hers are mutually exclusive.

[jacmac]

You are not interested in an intelligent discussion about any subject. You will say anything to counter what is said by others. GOODBY

Jack

[Michal Z]

Cameras have very limited dynamic range compared to the human eye. A sun which appears yellow/red to the eye can look white to the camera because the brightness levels are clipping. If the scene were exposed to capture the changing colour of the solar disc, all the other scenery would be black/silhouette only. Also, (at least in my neck of the woods) most days there is not enough atmospheric haze/dust to make the sun appear red at sunset.

You are wrong.
The sun disk is always the most orange-reddish part of the sunrise/sunset.

"Camera brightness levels" will never cause the red to turn into white.
Big forest fires are always much more brighter then the sun near the horizon, and yet you never see the footage of forest fires looking white.

Also from my experience, the more clearer the day, the more reddish the sunset.

Here are two photos I took within a minute of another.

The first, exposed for the landscape, at 1/200th of a second.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/170 ... 010312.JPG
The sun looked very orange by eye, but the camera could not capture the colour at that exposure.

I then shortened the exposure to 1/16000th of a second (80 times shorter) and zoomed in fully on the sun capturing this.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/170 ... 010313.JPG
As you can see, the sun now appears orange, but everything else is totally black, even the sliver of cloud occluding the sun. I think this gives a good idea of just how bright the sun is, even at sunset.

[john666]

The sun looked very orange by eye, but the camera could not capture the colour at that exposure.

You may be right about that after all.

But still the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49FykppaLhs looks like a fake to me.
The reason is the fact that in the video you do not see a disk like in the picture that you made, but just something white that changes forms.

Also concerning sunset, what do you think, is the sun disk objectively white, and only appearing red to the eye, or is it objectively red and only appearing white to the camera?

[scowie]

I know for a fact that at the 45th parallel north the sun is directly overhead around the time of the summer solstice.

You are mistaken. The sun would be 21½° to the south for you. (You will be able to test this again in a month's time, btw)

The video and the women's description are in absolute contradiction to each other.

The more north you get, the lower the sun disk is, irrespective of the time of the year.
THAT IS HER DESCRIPTION

That is only during the day time, or more specifically, that's the midday sun. At night the opposite is the case... the more north you get the higher the sun is at midnight (or the less it dips below the horizon). The arctic circle is the point where, during the summer solstice, the sun is high enough at midnight to just touch the horizon to the north. Once you reach the north pole the day-night, high-low oscillation has disappeared completely.

[scowie]

At the equator the daylight is 12 hours a day all year round.
And yet the movement of the sun disk allegedly changes throughout the year.
The daylight amount stays the same, but the movement of the sun disk changes

There is nothing contradictory about those statements. I suggest you buy yourself a globe and a torch and have a bit of a play. You might learn something.

the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49FykppaLhs looks like a fake to me.
The reason is the fact that in the video you do not see a disk like in the picture that you made, but just something white that changes forms.

Not fake, overexposed.

[john666]

I know for a fact that at the 45th parallel north the sun is directly overhead around the time of the summer solstice.

You are mistaken. The sun would be 21½° to the south for you. (You will be able to test this again in a month's time, btw)

You are either mistaken or you are a part of the same conspiracy of which the mainstream astronomers are a part of.
It is of course a conspiracy because anyone who lives in or near the 45th parallel north would know that the sun is overhead you, during the summer solstice.

It is conspiracy of the "scientific community".
They feel that they can shamelessly lie about even the most obvious stuff, like the position of the sun disk on the sky.

Not only that the sun is overhead you at the 45th parallel north during the summer solstice, but the Moon is directly overhead you during the winter solstice as well.

I remember distinctly how I during the last December saw the Moon at 90 degrees, meaning directly above me and no amount of lies from anybody is going to change that fact.

The video and the women's description are in absolute contradiction to each other.

The more north you get, the lower the sun disk is, irrespective of the time of the year.
THAT IS HER DESCRIPTION

That is only during the day time, or more specifically, that's the midday sun. At night the opposite is the case... the more north you get the higher the sun is at midnight (or the less it dips below the horizon). The arctic circle is the point where, during the summer solstice, the sun is high enough at midnight to just touch the horizon to the north. Once you reach the north pole the day-night, high-low oscillation has disappeared completely.

She said:

"But up here near the Arctic Circle the sun doesn©t go as much overhead as take a low broad arc. In the summer, it arcs all the way around you, rising in the north and setting in the north. In the winter, it barely pops up in the south and sets again just a bit further west in the south. That “in-between time” gets really stretched out."
http://grapevine.is/mag/column-opinion/ ... ter-right/

From which it logically follows that when you get to the North pole, the sun disk is going to rise at due North and is going to set at due North.

When you combine this fact with the statement But up here near the Arctic Circle the sun doesn©t go as much overhead as take a low broad arc. it logically follows that when get to the North pole, the sun disk during the summer solstice is either going to perfectly follow the horizon barely touching it, or it is going to be completely below the horizon(not just during the summer solstice).

Which of the two possibilities is more logical?

The second one of course;

From her own testimony, the more North you go, the less are you going to see the sun disk, compared to the more southern latitudes.

Therefore it would be completely illogical to assume that when you get to the most northerly place, that you would see the sun disk for a greater amount of time, then those at the more southern latitudes.

Meaning the source of light at the North pole is not the sun disk, but something very different.
And the corrupt mainstream science is hiding this fact.

If her testimony is true, that is the only possible logical explanation.

[john666]

At the equator the daylight is 12 hours a day all year round.
And yet the movement of the sun disk allegedly changes throughout the year.
The daylight amount stays the same, but the movement of the sun disk changes

There is nothing contradictory about those statements. I suggest you buy yourself a globe and a torch and have a bit of a play. You might learn something.

I have a globe, and I have a torch, and the "experiment" that you suggested that I do, does not yield the results that you implied were to appear, if one only does the "experiment".

Does anyone have a logical explanation how at the equator the daylight would be 12 hours a day all year round even though according to mainstream astronomy, the movement of the sun disk changes throughout the year?

I don't think that anybody has an explanation for that.
At least not inside the parameters of mainstream astronomy.

[Michal Z]

You may be right about that after all.

But still the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49FykppaLhs looks like a fake to me.
The reason is the fact that in the video you do not see a disk like in the picture that you made, but just something white that changes forms.

Also concerning sunset, what do you think, is the sun disk objectively white, and only appearing red to the eye, or is it objectively red and only appearing white to the camera?

If you could gradually reduce the exposure of that video, you would see the clouds dimming and eventually see the solar disc instead of the big white blob.

I believe that the light of the disc actually reddens as it passes through the greater thickness of atmosphere near the horizon, so the white appearance is due to the limited dynamic range of the camera.

[scowie]

From which it logically follows that when you get to the North pole, the sun disk is going to rise at due North and is going to set at due North.

No, that does not follow; that is what happens just below the arctic circle in summer, like the girl said (although your "due north" is not quite right since the sun obviously can't set and rise in exactly the same place). As I have told you, the further north you go the higher the sun is at night, so if it dips just below the horizon at night for a short time during the summer solstice in Reykjavik, it is going to dip low in the sky without dropping below the horizon for any location inside the arctic circle, except for at the north pole where it does not dip at all. During summer the average height of the sun throughout a 24hr period is always above the horizon — this applies to any location on the planet, other than the equator. How much difference there is between the maximum (noon) and minimum (midnight) height depends on latitude. The closer to a pole you get, the smaller this difference is, until you reach the pole, at which point there is no difference at all — the sun lingers above the horizon. At the equinoxes the average height is the horizon exactly. In winter it is below the horizon.

From her own testimony, the more North you go, the less are you going to see the sun disk, compared to the more southern latitudes.

No, that is the complete opposite of what she said. If the sun, as she said, "arcs all the way around you", that clearly means that the sun is in the sky much longer than it would be at more southern latitudes. The sun does what you see in the video that jacmac posted, but with the difference that, for her, the lowest point the sun reaches is just below the horizon instead of being just above it.

I can only imagine that when you read about the sun rising and setting in the north you imagined it being in the sky for a very short time, but no... that is the case in the winter, but on the southern horizon. She is saying the sun does nearly a full circuit of the sky around you before coming back, some 20+ hours later, to approximately the same northerly location on the horizon.

Does anyone have a logical explanation how at the equator the daylight would be 12 hours a day all year round even though according to mainstream astronomy, the movement of the sun disk changes throughout the year?

I don't think that anybody has an explanation for that.
At least not inside the parameters of mainstream astronomy.

As the earth rotates, consider the line that any point on the equator traces in space during the time that it has direct line of sight to the sun (ignoring refraction in the atmosphere)... this is exactly a semi-circle. This is the case whatever the time of year is. The only thing that changes is the orientation of this semi-circle in relation to the sun — during the equinoxes it is edge on to the sun, during the solstices it is at an angle with respect to the sun, bowing outwards to the north or the south. Obviously any point moves at a constant speed so this semi-circle means 12hrs of day, 12 hrs of night.

During summer, one hemisphere is tilted towards the sun and any point in that hemisphere describes more than a semi-circle in view of the sun, hence longer days. Any point within the arctic circle remains in full view of the sun during the summer solstice, thanks to the earth's tilt. With no earth in the way the sun obviously does not dip below the horizon at all.

[john666]

You may be right about that after all.

But still the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49FykppaLhs looks like a fake to me.
The reason is the fact that in the video you do not see a disk like in the picture that you made, but just something white that changes forms.

Also concerning sunset, what do you think, is the sun disk objectively white, and only appearing red to the eye, or is it objectively red and only appearing white to the camera?

If you could gradually reduce the exposure of that video, you would see the clouds dimming and eventually see the solar disc instead of the big white blob.

I believe that the light of the disc actually reddens as it passes through the greater thickness of atmosphere near the horizon, so the white appearance is due to the limited dynamic range of the camera.

I did that, and at no point did I see any sun disk, so I am skeptical as to the validity of your claim.



How do you explain this image?

[john666]

From which it logically follows that when you get to the North pole, the sun disk is going to rise at due North and is going to set at due North.

No, that does not follow; that is what happens just below the arctic circle in summer, like the girl said (although your "due north" is not quite right since the sun obviously can't set and rise in exactly the same place). As I have told you, the further north you go the higher the sun is at night, so if it dips just below the horizon at night for a short time during the summer solstice in Reykjavik, it is going to dip low in the sky without dropping below the horizon for any location inside the arctic circle, except for at the north pole where it does not dip at all.

Tell me scowie, is it fair to say that as you get closer to the North pole, the sun disk is rising closer and closer to the due North, and that the sun disk is setting closer and closer to the due North?

From her own testimony, the more North you go, the less are you going to see the sun disk, compared to the more southern latitudes.

No, that is the complete opposite of what she said. If the sun, as she said, "arcs all the way around you", that clearly means that the sun is in the sky much longer than it would be at more southern latitudes.

"But up here near the Arctic Circle the sun doesn©t go as much overhead as take a low broad arc. In the summer, it arcs all the way around you, rising in the north and setting in the north."

"Around you", is the horizon.
When she says "take a low broad arc" she means that the sun disk follows the horizon more precisely then the sun disk at the more southern latitudes.

I know from personal experience living at the 45th parallel North, that the higher the sun disk is in the sky, the longer it is going to be in the sky.

If the sun disk in Reykjavik is lower in the sky compared to places at the 45th parallel North, it logically follows that it is going to spend less time in the sky compared to the places at the 45th parallel North.

She is saying the sun does nearly a full circuit of the sky around you before coming back, some 20+ hours later, to approximately the same northerly location on the horizon.

She did not say that.
The main topic of her article is twilight.

She is saying that twilight can be seen much longer in the more northern regions compared to the more southern regions.

My theory is that the source of twilight is not the sun disk, but that unknown source of light that resides at the North pole.

I think it should also be said that the northern folks have myths about some kind of paradise on Earth, which is situated at the North pole.
I think that these myths are true.

Does anyone have a logical explanation how at the equator the daylight would be 12 hours a day all year round even though according to mainstream astronomy, the movement of the sun disk changes throughout the year?

I don't think that anybody has an explanation for that.
At least not inside the parameters of mainstream astronomy.

As the earth rotates, consider the line that any point on the equator traces in space during the time that it has direct line of sight to the sun (ignoring refraction in the atmosphere)... this is exactly a semi-circle. This is the case whatever the time of year is. The only thing that changes is the orientation of this semi-circle in relation to the sun

Your explanation doesn't make any physical sense.
You are just regurgitating conventional talking points.

If that what you say is true, it would be true for every single place on the Earth.

I am going to explain something that obviously great majority of people do not understand.
The sun disk cannot be a representation of the physical sphere millions of miles away like the corrupt space agencies are saying.

Do the following experiment:

1. Take a spherical object
2. Take a flashlight
3. Go with these two objects into a completely dark room
4. Point the flashlight at the sphere
5. At the same time rotate the sphere

If you going to do that, you are going to see that the circle light which is reflecting of a sphere doesn't move around the sphere like the sun disk moves around the celestial sphere.

Meaning that the sun disk CANNOT be a representation of a spherical object out there in the space but has to be an intrinsic part of the celestial sphere.

During summer, one hemisphere is tilted towards the sun and any point in that hemisphere describes more than a semi-circle in view of the sun, hence longer days. Any point within the arctic circle remains in full view of the sun during the summer solstice, thanks to the earth's tilt. With no earth in the way the sun obviously does not dip below the horizon at all.

If the Earth would have been rotating west to east, we would not see the following behavior "In the summer, it arcs all the way around you, rising in the north and setting in the north."

The Earth is not rotating at all, and it is definitely not orbiting the sun either.
It is stationary, and all the stars rotate around it.

If it weren't so, we would not have the concept of a year.
Every year the movement of the stars on the celestial sphere stays the same.

[jacmac]

John666 says:

The Earth is not rotating at all, and it is definitely not orbiting the sun either.
It is stationary, and all the stars rotate around it.

Now I get it. That explains everything !
You are at the center of the Universe and up there on the 45th parallel with a perfect view of things; being exactly half way between the equator and the north pole.

[scowie]

Tell me scowie, is it fair to say that as you get closer to the North pole, the sun disk is rising closer and closer to the due North, and that the sun disk is setting closer and closer to the due North?

Not quite... As you get closer to the arctic circle during summer the sun sets and rises closer and closer to due north. Within the arctic circle during the summer solstice, rather than setting and rising in the north, the sun reaches its minimum height in the sky at due north at midnight. At the north pole, the sun reaches it's highest midnight position of anywhere on the planet.

When she says "take a low broad arc" she means that the sun disk follows the horizon more precisely then the sun disk at the more southern latitudes.

Yes, like in the video that jacmac posted. It follows the horizon from north to east to south to west and back to north again over 24 hours, dipping briefly below the horizon for locations just south of the arctic circle like Reykjavik (and not dipping at all at the north pole).

I know from personal experience living at the 45th parallel North, that the higher the sun disk is in the sky, the longer it is going to be in the sky.

That's a season-related phenomenon, not a latitude-related one, hence...

If the sun disk in Reykjavik is lower in the sky compared to places at the 45th parallel North, it logically follows that it is going to spend less time in the sky compared to the places at the 45th parallel North.

...is wrong.

She is saying that twilight can be seen much longer in the more northern regions compared to the more southern regions.

She is saying that you get twilight instead of darkness during the summer night-time. These twilight nights are much shorter than the nights at more southerly regions.

My theory is that the source of twilight is not the sun disk, but that unknown source of light that resides at the North pole.

It's the sunlight scattered by the atmosphere. Whilst the sun is below the horizon for the girl in Reykjavik during twilight hours, from a point way up high in the atmosphere the sun is still above the horizon.

If that what you say is true, it would be true for every single place on the Earth.

How can that possibly be true for a point on the axis of rotation, i.e. the poles? Over 24 hours they clearly don't describe a semi-circle. Neither does a point within the arctic circle... during the summer solstice it describes a full circle in view of the sun.

I am going to explain something that obviously great majority of people do not understand.
The sun disk cannot be a representation of the physical sphere millions of miles away like the corrupt space agencies are saying.

Do the following experiment:

1. Take a spherical object
2. Take a flashlight
3. Go with these two objects into a completely dark room
4. Point the flashlight at the sphere
5. At the same time rotate the sphere

If you going to do that, you are going to see that the circle light which is reflecting of a sphere doesn't move around the sphere like the sun disk moves around the celestial sphere.

Of course it moves around the sphere if you are rotating it! If that sphere is a globe the circle of light is gonna move over Asia, then Africa/Europe, then the Atlantic, then America, then the Pacific (if rotated west to east).

If the Earth would have been rotating west to east, we would not see the following behavior "In the summer, it arcs all the way around you, rising in the north and setting in the north."

We certainly would! You said you had a globe earlier so you can do this... imagine that you are the sun... hold that globe up in front of you tilted towards you so that you can clearly see the north pole and the arctic circle on top. Now rotate that globe to the right (west to east) about it's polar axis and keep your eye on Iceland and consider what other places on the globe are closer to you than Iceland — this will show you which direction the sun is from the point of view of Reykjavik...

When Iceland is furthest away from you, the north pole is between you and it, hence the sun is to the north of Iceland when it sets and rises... as you rotate the globe and Iceland moves to it's leftmost location from your POV, look what land mass is now between you and Iceland... you will find that it is Scandinavia which is to the east so the sun is to the east in the sky of Reykjavik (at approx. 6am).

Now rotate the globe so that Iceland is at its closest position to you... you will now find that places to the south like Britain, Spain, or even better, the Azores are closer to you than Iceland, hence at midday the sun is to the south in the sky of Reykjavik... Then finally rotate the globe so that Iceland is at it's furthest to the right from your POV... you will find that the southern tip of Greenland is closer to you than Reykjavik, hence the sun is in the west at around 9pm. Hence the sun moves around the sky in a full circle N>E>S>W>N, as the girl described, and as the video showed.