- #1
Hobart
- 9
- 2
When the sun's rays break through a cloud there appears a radiating pattern but if one drew a line through these rays they would meet much closer than the distance to the sun. How come?
You are imputing an angle that is not there. The rays, if extended, would meet at the sun. There are no good distance cues to make it clear that those rays are nearly parallel to your line of sight rather than at right angles to it.Hobart said:When the sun's rays break through a cloud there appears a radiating pattern but if one drew a line through these rays they would meet much closer than the distance to the sun. How come?
That simple statement would apply if the Sun were a simple point source. But every shadow from the sun has a fuzzy edge (penumbra) due to the finite size of the source. This gives a +_0.5° spread (= 1° total) which is visible and probably exaggerated / foreshortened by the viewing angle of the sunbeams.jbriggs444 said:The rays, if extended, would meet at the sun.
The way light beams appear is not intuitive and accounts for one of the groundless arguments that the Moon Landing Photos were faked.anorlunda said:Do you mean this?
View attachment 223121
Hobart said:When the sun's rays break through a cloud there appears a radiating pattern but if one drew a line through these rays they would meet much closer than the distance to the sun. How come?
Yep. I could believe that, too. The 'tunnel' between clouds can be very bright due to scattering.Shadow89 said:I noticed that too. My personal theory: These "beams" (actually light bounced off of moisture/dust in the air) have already been reflected one or more times before you see them. Thus, the beams may seem to radiate from Area A (brightly lit, top of the clouds) through Area B (Shadow zone beneath the clouds).
What you see with your eyes is light scattered in the air, obviously, but the regions you see are straight lines directly from the Sun.Shadow89 said:I noticed that too. My personal theory: These "beams" (actually light bounced off of moisture/dust in the air) have already been reflected one or more times before you see them. Thus, the beams may seem to radiate from Area A (brightly lit, top of the clouds) through Area B (Shadow zone beneath the clouds).
Ok, but you realize based on the other explanations that this is wrong, right? Those rays are in fact nearly parallel. They are not bounced around, creating a new source.Shadow89 said:I noticed that too. My personal theory: These "beams" (actually light bounced off of moisture/dust in the air) have already been reflected one or more times before you see them. Thus, the beams may seem to radiate from Area A (brightly lit, top of the clouds) through Area B (Shadow zone beneath the clouds).
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds pretty wrong; air (the atmosphere) is pretty transparent. There is minimal scattering.What you see with your eyes is light scattered in the air...
If that were totally the case, you wouldn't see sunbeams 'side on'.russ_watters said:; air (the atmosphere) is pretty transparent. There is minimal scattering.
What tiny fraction of a percent would that be, and what is your threshold for "minimal"?sophiecentaur said:If that were totally the case, you wouldn't see sunbeams 'side on'.
In every picture I can find, the beams converge on the position of the sun, not on some hypothetical single hole in the clouds.pikpobedy said:As for the parallax cited by others... not really from the sun.
Parallax from the opening in the cloud... yes.
Yes. And the holes (plural) through which its beams peek are not.pikpobedy said:You know the sun is 150 million kilometers distant.
Yespikpobedy said:The sun is extremely far as such the rays are parallel when they arrive on earth
No. The rays visible in the pictures are still parallel in 3D, just not in the 2D projection of the picture.pikpobedy said:The hole in the clouds acts as a gross point source that the rays emanate from.
1. What sort of lens was used for that picture? Wide angle, no doubt.OmCheeto said:From directly above they would, but not at an angle.
View attachment 223780
original and my attempt to doodle lines that follow the shadows
Keith_McClary said:Sunbeams viewed from an airplane look almost parallel.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/20154632802/in/photostream/
They should look parallel when viewed from space. Has this ever been photographed?
I think it was just a standard lens.sophiecentaur said:1. What sort of lens was used for that picture? Wide angle, no doubt.
2. The picture was taken from only 400miles above and the Earth's curvature could account for the apparent different angles of shadows. Remember all the hoohaah about the shadows in pictures taken on the Moon and the suggestions that they had to be faked? The effect of the appearance of shadows is not intuitive.
The lines you sketched would pass through the anti solar point which is 150Mkm away and not just to one side of Earth.
How about for larger angles? I wasn't sure what your modelling was showing. This sort of geometry is hard to visualise. (Hence the Apollo misconceptions)OmCheeto said:Looks very similar, in my imagination.
I was afraid you would ask that.sophiecentaur said:How about for larger angles?
"hard to visualize"? I'd say; "Impossible".I wasn't sure what your modelling was showing. This sort of geometry is hard to visualise. (Hence the Apollo misconceptions)
Wide angle lenses don't always give curved lines and some are terrible. The panels in the cloud shots are tapered, implying a fairly wide angle lens. But the taper goes the other way compared with the shadows so you can probably ignore my comment. (Situation normal.)
Hobart said:When the sun's rays break through a cloud there appears a radiating pattern
mfb said:
jbriggs444 said:You are imputing an angle that is not there. The rays, if extended, would meet at the sun. There are no good distance cues to make it clear that those rays are nearly parallel to your line of sight rather than at right angles to it.
You can rely on your brain to let you down when you need it most.Mister T said:blink to see the same after-image while staring at a wall that is much further away.
I've known about the Moon size thing for a long time, and have often struggled to explain it to people. I've never heard it demonstrated so eloquently using a light bulb afterimage! Thanks!Mister T said:Note that when you expose your eyes to a bright source, such as a bare light bulb, you can then see an after-image of that source when you blink your eyes. Practice this until you see it happen for yourself. (Some people who wear contact lenses may not be able to see this phenomenon.)
When you are able to see this after-image clearly by blinking, do so when staring a near-by wall. Now do the same thing for a far-away wall, that is, blink to see the same after-image while staring at a wall that is much further away. This is a fascinating demonstration! The after-image is much larger when the wall is farther away.
The reason is the same as the reason why the moon looks bigger when it's near the horizon.