 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2006Strange question.
This is partly for fun, but if not interested please skip this thread. The question. Suppose you live on the border between the US and Canada. It's june and you make a photograph due south. (So the camera is directly pointed towards the south). You use a (very) wide angle lens. You want the sun in the picture and you want it as low as possible in the picture. At what time should you take the picture ? Thanks for your time and attention, ben > This is partly for fun, but if not interested please skip this thread. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Thanks for your time and attention, > ben Noon on Dec 21. Why would you want to live that close to the border, move further north and breathe easier. >> It's june and you make a photograph due south. (So the camera > > Noon on Dec 21. Dec 21 does not happen in june, at least not close to the border US / Canada. > Why would you want to live that close to the border, move further north > and breathe easier. Thanks for your participation, ben > This is partly for fun, but if not interested please skip this thread. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as low as possible in the picture. > At what time should you take the picture ? Just a rough guess here, but a little after 4AM or perhaps just before 9:30 PM  SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> This is partly for fun, but if not interested please skip this thread. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Just a rough guess here, but a little after 4AM or perhaps just before > 9:30 PM With the camera facing south, this would not include the 4 AM sunrise, or the 9:30 PM sunset, not even with a Fisheye. But because a Fisheye 'distorts', it becomes dificult to define what is as low as possible. So lets stick with lenses which are distortion free. ben >> Just a rough guess here, but a little after 4AM or perhaps just before >> 9:30 PM [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it becomes dificult to define what is as low as possible. So lets stick with > lenses which are distortion free. What are you talking about? I simply indicated that sunrise is typically just after 4AM and that sunset is typically just before 9:30PM at this time of year, thus making it possible to put very low in the frame. I didn't say anything about the choice of lens. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>> Just a rough guess here, but a little after 4AM or perhaps just before >>> 9:30 PM [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > year, thus making it possible to put very low in the frame. I didn't say > anything about the choice of lens. But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then behind the camera. So the sun would not be in the picture. And the sun in the picture was one of the requirements as wel. The reverence to the fisheye was because some fisheye lenses can actually cover part of the picture which is behind the camera. As said it is a strange question. Thank you for participating. Ben > But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the > south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then > behind the camera. So the sun would not be in the picture. And the sun > in the picture was one of the requirements as wel. Unless you are in the tropics, the sun will ALWAYS be to the south in the Northern Hemisphere, so it is impossible for the sun to be behind the camera when it is facing south, no matter what time of day. The 4AM (assuming sunrise) and 9:30PM (assuming sunset) positions would be on the horizon off to the left or right respectively when facing south. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the >> south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >sunrise) and 9:30PM (assuming sunset) positions would be on the horizon off to >the left or right respectively when facing south. Give that one a little more thought... SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>> But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the >>> south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Give that one a little more thought... The only place were the sun can be north of your position is if you are south of the tropic of cancer and the time of year is such that noon puts the sun to the north of you. Since no part of the Canadian border is south of the Tropic of Cancer, the sun will ALWAYS be to the south of you (even at high noon) and thus, facing south will always have the sun in view except before and after sunset. Thus, the lowest point the sun can be [defining the horizon as the lowest point] is at sunrise or sunset and that would be to the left and to the right respectively. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>>> But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the >>>> south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the > right respectively. Suppose you are ten feet away from the North Pole in June. You point your camera south (i.e. away from the pole). At noon the sun will be in front of you. At midnight it will be behind you. It will always be above the horizon but it will be behind the camera for part of the day. >> The only place were the sun can be north of your position is if you are >> south [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Tropic >> of Cancer, the sun will ALWAYS be to the south of you (even at high noon) ... >Suppose you are ten feet away from the North Pole in June. You point your >camera south (i.e. away from the pole). At noon the sun will be in front of >you. At midnight it will be behind you. It will always be above the >horizon but it will be behind the camera for part of the day. And that is not just true at 10 feet from the Pole, it is true for any location within about 1600 miles of the North Pole. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Suppose you are ten feet away from the North Pole in June. You point your > camera south (i.e. away from the pole). At noon the sun will be in front of > you. At midnight it will be behind you. It will always be above the > horizon but it will be behind the camera for part of the day. Indeed. Of course, you would not be on the Canadian/US border. No granted, there are parts of the Yukon that have a border with Canada in such a situation, but the OP already "poopoo"'d that from another poster (Floyd I believe). SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > The only place were the sun can be north of your position is if you > are south of the tropic of cancer and the time of year is such that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > point] is at sunrise or sunset and that would be to the left and to > the right respectively. This is true at or near noon (high or otherwise), but my understanding of the question is that we are not restricted to noon. When the N pole of the Earth is tilted towards the sun (N hemisphere summer, June) the sun will be North of East or West at sunrise or sunset respectively, at whatever latitude you are standing. (It's a bit trickier in the lands of the midnight sun, because there isn't a sunset or sunrise by definition. But the sun still does a 360 degree circuit and so has to go, visibly, through due N and due S every day!). Anyone who does not understand how that is the case should get a globe and a torch and study it in the dark until they do understand! There may be a convincing animated diagram somewhere on the web (there really should be!) but unfortunately I don't know where. Mike. SignatureIf reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee. > There may be a convincing animated diagram somewhere on the web (there > really should be!) but unfortunately I don't know where. Actually, I spent some time looking at a globe last night, and once tilted, it became apparent that you are correct. What amazes me is that it is very hard to see in reality. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> There may be a convincing animated diagram somewhere on the web >> (there really should be!) but unfortunately I don't know where. > > Actually, I spent some time looking at a globe last night, and once > tilted, it became apparent that you are correct. What amazes me is > that it is very hard to see in reality. Thank you for that; it was a very noble retraction and I salute you. Mike. SignatureIf reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee. >> Give that one a little more thought... > >The only place were the sun can be north of your position is if you are south >of the tropic of cancer and the time of year is such that noon puts the sun to >the north of you. Give it some real thought... And while you are at it, take a look at this URL to help you think about it! This picture was taken with the camera point directly *north*. It demonstrates precisely the fact that your statement is not correct. Anyone north of the Arctic Circle will see the sun *exactly* north of them at least once a year. Anyone north of the Tropic can see the sun at some degree north of true east or west for at least part of the year. http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/sun04.jpg That is the sun directly over the Arctic Ocean, looking exactly north, on June 21 2003. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/sun04.jpg Yes, I know the tilt of the Earth throws off the arctic for a period of time. But the OP already tossed out your commment as the incorrect answer indicating "the sun would be behind you". SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > Unless you are in the tropics, the sun will ALWAYS be to the south in the > Northern Hemisphere, [...] Never been very far north, eh? >> Unless you are in the tropics, the sun will ALWAYS be to the south in the >> Northern Hemisphere, [...] > > Never been very far north, eh? Yes, I wasn't thinking about the perpetual light of the top 20 degrees. But, I believe the original poster already shot down this theory that it is the answer to his "Strange Question". SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > > But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the > > south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Northern Hemisphere, so it is impossible for the sun to be behind the camera > when it is facing south, I don't consider the South Pole Tropical. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >> > But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the >> > south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I don't consider the South Pole Tropical. It isn't in the Northern Hemisphere either. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: > I don't consider the South Pole Tropical. Good, because you can't face south from the south pole. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > > But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the > > south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Unless you are in the tropics, the sun will ALWAYS be to the south in the > Northern Hemisphere, Come to Lancashire in June. The sun rises at 46.5 deg and sets at 313.5 degrees in midsummer. The weather may have been warm this summer but it was certainly not tropical. Cheers, Luke SignatureLincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET) Swansea City 2-2 Southend United We went up twice with Tilly and Brush >> > But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the >> > south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Come to Lancashire in June. The sun rises at 46.5 deg and sets at 313.5 > degrees in midsummer. Lancashire is not at a high enough latitude to ever have the sun behind you when facing south. As has already been pointed out to me as obvious, if you are far enough north (north of 66.5 degrees latitude) the sun actually move behind you in the evening. Lancashire is just north of 53 degrees latitude. In Lancashire, the sun is ALWAYS to your south. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>>>But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the >>>>south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > behind you in the evening. Lancashire is just north of 53 degrees latitude. > In Lancashire, the sun is ALWAYS to your south. That is not correct. The sun rises and sets closer to north than either to the east or west, and very far from south. If you are facing south at sunrise or sunset, the sun will be behind you. Roger >>> > But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the >>> > south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Lancashire is not at a high enough latitude to ever have the sun behind you >when facing south. If those numbers are correct (and they do appear to be), the you are clearly wrong. If you face directly south, the sun would rise at just short of 45 degrees *behind* you on your left side, and set just short of 45 degrees *behind* you on your right side. >As has already been pointed out to me as obvious, if you >are far enough north (north of 66.5 degrees latitude) the sun actually move >behind you in the evening. What you appear to be missing is that at 66.5 degrees it is due *north* of you. But to be behind you all it needs to be is anywhere from due east to due west on the north side. The only thing unique about the Arctic Circle is that at that latitude the sun is actually absolutely due north. Between the Arctic Circle and and the equator the sun is proportionately closer to rising at due east and setting at due west on the Vernal Equinox and Autumnal Equinox, and at points between the equator and the Tropic of Cancer on days between an Equinox and the Summer Solstice. >Lancashire is just north of 53 degrees latitude. >In Lancashire, the sun is ALWAYS to your south. That is *clearly* not true. 53 degrees is about 30 degrees farther north than the Tropic of Cancer. On virtually all days between the Vernal Equinox and the Autumnal Equinox the sun is going to be up more than 12 hours, and will rise north of due east and set north of due west. A quick check indicates there would be almost 17 hours of daylight on June 21st at that latitude, and thus for the first 2.5 hours after sunrise the sun would be *north* of due east, while for the last 2.5 hours before sunset it would be *north* of due west. You figure that out in degrees north... SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Lancashire is not at a high enough latitude to ever have the sun > behind you when facing south. As has already been pointed out to me > as obvious, if you are far enough north (north of 66.5 degrees > latitude) the sun actually move behind you in the evening. > Lancashire is just north of 53 degrees latitude. In Lancashire, the > sun is ALWAYS to your south. Perhaps you should think about how the sun manages to stay in the sky for more than 12 hours in the summer (if you are outside the tropics, but not necessarily as far north as Lancashire). After all, the Earth is still rotating at the same rate as in winter, and the horizon still only subtends 180 degrees from east to west. (Hint: the answer is that the sun starts off north of east and finishes up north of west, and yet is due south at noon, so it has further to go and the days are longer...) Mike. SignatureIf reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee. > >> > But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the > >> > south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > behind you in the evening. Lancashire is just north of 53 degrees latitude. > In Lancashire, the sun is ALWAYS to your south. Would you care to explain, then, what the bright thing in the sky is called that rises and sets on a daily basis? Perhaps you have a different star where you live. Cheers, Luke SignatureLincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET) Swansea City 2-2 Southend United We went up twice with Tilly and Brush On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:54:27 +0000, gogogo.tilson.5.lukebosman@spamgourmet.com (Luke Bosman) wrote: >> >> > But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the >> >> > south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >called that rises and sets on a daily basis? Perhaps you have a >different star where you live. Hey Luke, I live in Lancashire and I've seen that bright shiny thing through odd holes in the clouds a couple of times. So that's the sun is it? You learn something new every day on usenet :-) SignatureJohn Bean > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:54:27 +0000, > gogogo.tilson.5.lukebosman@spamgourmet.com (Luke Bosman) > wrote: > >Would you care to explain, then, what the bright thing in the sky is > >called that rises and sets on a daily basis? Perhaps you have a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shiny thing through odd holes in the clouds a couple of > times. So that's the sun is it? Well, I thought it was. I'm not so sure any more. Cheers, Luke SignatureLincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET) Swansea City 2-2 Southend United We went up twice with Tilly and Brush >> But one of the conditions was that the camera was facing exactly to the >> south. The 4 AM position and the 9.30 PM position of the sun is then [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > off to > the left or right respectively when facing south. No it is not let take an old astronomical site. For example Stone Henge, near Salisbury in Great Britain. Somewhere around 21 of june the sun rises 45 degrees to the east from the north, and it settles on the same day 45 degrees to the west from the north. If you are during sunrise or during sunset at Stone Henge, and look into the direction of the sun, you are more looking north than you are looking south. If your nose is pointed to the south, the sun will be behind you during sunrise or sunset. During that day the angle between sunrise, Stone Henge en sunset is extremely close to 270 degrees. As said Stone Henge is in great Britain at about 51 degrees North. ben > This is partly for fun, but if not interested please skip this thread. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as low as possible in the picture. > At what time should you take the picture ? Which part of the border? AK/YT or ON/NY? This link was posted a few months ago and has been very helpful to me. It lists sunrise/sunsets via lat/long or location. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html Carol > > This is partly for fun, but if not interested please skip this thread. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Which part of the border? AK/YT or ON/NY? >> This is partly for fun, but if not interested please skip this thread. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Which part of the border? AK/YT or ON/NY? Well I do not want to specify, but I live on about 52 degrees North. Ben (The 52 degrees North somewhere in Europe, but I looked where 52 degrees North would fall in North America, so that would be about the Canadian border.) > (The 52 degrees North somewhere in Europe, but I looked where 52 > degrees North would fall in North America, so that would be about > the Canadian border.) That's just north of the border. The border runs along the 49 parallel. Just fyi... Mike (living at approx 58 degrees north!) >> (The 52 degrees North somewhere in Europe, but I looked where 52 >> degrees North would fall in North America, so that would be about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Mike (living at approx 58 degrees north!) Yes I am sorry. Being European, I looked for a spot (Google Earth) near 52 degrees North. Looking at the scale that I did this was close enough to the Canadian Border. But you are right there is a huge difference between 49 degrees and 52 degrees. But for the question it does not matter. But is was naive of me to even think of those to as being close. (The difference between 49 and 52 degrees falls within walking distance but, then you have to be an enthousiastic walker and have some time). 58 Degrees north on the American continent, I suppose that is realy high up to the north, extremes in the winter and things like that. (52 Degrees north in Europe living is not so far north, because of the Mexican gulfstream. It is still a mild climate, when lucky we can skate in the winter on natural ice.) Thanks for your participation and time, Ben > [...] I looked where 52 > degrees North would fall in North America, so that would be about > the Canadian border.) You do realize that the US/Canada border is not entirely the 49th parallel, right? I've stood on the border at more than 69 degrees north latitude, and at less than 42 degrees north latitude. 52 degrees is well over 300 km north of the 49th parallel which is what I think you're referring to. >> [...] I looked where 52 >> degrees North would fall in North America, so that would be about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > over 300 km north of the 49th parallel which is what I think you're > referring to. Yes, I understand that. However, I did not believe your "strange question" to be a puzzle when I jumped into this, so the logical assumption was the 49th parallel ... or any location on the border with the continental US. I see you were aiming for an arctic boundry. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > This is partly for fun, but if not interested please skip this thread. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as low as possible in the picture. > At what time should you take the picture ? Sunrise or sunset. If there was a field of view specified, one could calculate when the sun went off the edge of the frame from solar charts. The widest 35mm lens I know of is 6mm & 220 degrees (only 20 degrees north on either side) but I think there's wider like a glass ball you point up to capture the entire scene for specialized panoramic cameras. >> This is partly for fun, but if not interested please skip this thread. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > on either side) but I think there's wider like a glass ball you point up > to capture the entire scene for specialized panoramic cameras. Sorry I should have specified a non fisheye lens. I do not want to cope with the 'distortion' of a fisheye. The widest angle (sunrise sunset) at that latitude is about 270 degrees, so sunrise and sunset do not belong to the options. So even with the most extreme wide angle we can only cope with something from east over the south to the west. The question still stands. Added here is a 'distortion' free lens. (I think that would be a 14 or 15 mm lens for ther 35 mm format). Thanks for your contribution and time, Ben > "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> schreef > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Added here is a 'distortion' free lens. (I think that would be a 14 or 15 mm > lens for ther 35 mm format). My Sigma 12-24 is almost 180 degrees on a film so figure a DSLR at about 120 degrees. From the link below, I just grabbed Detroit MI: sunrise 5:55 sunset 9:11 I'll let someone else do the math. SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > My Sigma 12-24 is almost 180 degrees on a film so figure a DSLR at about > 120 degrees. From the link below, I just grabbed Detroit MI: sunrise 5:55 > sunset 9:11 Your Sigma 12-24mm is 122 degrees _diagonal_ on 35mm film (less horizontal). http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3236&navigator=1 "When used with a 35mm or full-frame digital SLR camera, this ultra wide angle zoom lens offers 122 degree super wide angle of view along the diagonal axis." >Added here is a 'distortion' free lens. (I think that would be a 14 or 15 mm >lens for ther 35 mm format). A 15mm lens should have a horizontal FOV of about 100 degrees. That corresponds to about 6h40. So you want be there 3h20 before noon. Assuming noon at 12:00 (very rare) that would be 8:40. I think that most of the rotations (position of the rotational axis of the earth, the fact that you are holding the camera at an angle) affect just the vertical position of the sun and not the horizontal postion. But I could be wrong. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>Added here is a 'distortion' free lens. (I think that would be a 14 or 15 >>mm [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the vertical position of the sun and not the horizontal postion. But > I could be wrong. Here the assumption that you are making is still that the time should be as close as possible to sunrise or sunset. But pointing the camera south this is not correct. The sun wil appear the lowest in the picture on a south pointed camera at around 12:00 noon. You need an extreme wideangle to capture the sun at that moment, or by tilting the camera will bring it in the frame. Still pointing south the sun wil be the lowest in the frame at 12:00. ben <snip> > Here the assumption that you are making is still that the time should > be as close as possible to sunrise or sunset. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > or by tilting the camera will bring it in the frame. Still pointing south > the sun wil be the lowest in the frame at 12:00. I'd just love to know how you figure that. If the sun is at it's highest point in the sky, how can it be at it's lowest point in the frame? I just gotta hear this. Austin > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > highest point in the sky, how can it be at it's lowest point in the > frame? I just gotta hear this. I'll try to show some steps that you can figure it out yourself. 1. Thought experiment. We take a camera with for example a 12 mm lens. We make the frame high enough to capture the sun at 12:00. (About 60 degrees, so the frame has to be about sqrt(3)*12 = 21 milimeters, to be sure make this 30 milimeters from the center, so the total hight is 60 milimeters. Remember this is a thought experiment in real life a 12 mm lens would not capture 60 mm. A. Question is the frame high enough to capture the sun at 12.00. Answer yes it is. Now we are going further with the design, we make it a very wide angle frame. Say we want to cover 179 degrees. (Again not practical but it's a thought experiment). The frame would be 1375 mm from the center, so the total frame width would be 2750 mm. (So the 'sensor' size is a bit impractical 60 mm high by 2750 mm width, for the thought experiment). At around 6 in the morning the sun wil enter the frame. The sun is at that moment far above the horizon. Question where does the sun enter the frame ? At around 21.00 in the evening the sun will leave the frame. The sun is at that moment far above the horizon. Question where does the sun leave the frame ? The sun will not leave the frame between 6 and 21.00. So there should be a continues path the sun takes in the frame. This path does have a lowest point in the frame. If you correctly answer the two questions where the sun enters and leaves the frame, you might a also make a guess where the lowest point of the sun in the frame is. Ben > Austin >>> Here the assumption that you are making is still that the time should >>> be as close as possible to sunrise or sunset. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> highest point in the sky, how can it be at it's lowest point in the >> frame? I just gotta hear this. ... >The sun will not leave the frame between 6 and 21.00. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >make a guess where the lowest point of the sun in >the frame is. For standard definitions of "lowest point", it will be equally low at 6 and 21.00, and will be higher than that at all other times during the day. If you go far enough north, and turn your camera around to face north instead of south, your statement that it will be lowest at noon would then be correct. Anywhere above the Arctic Circle will be far enough north to demonstrate that effect... ;-) SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > For standard definitions of "lowest point", it will be equally > low at 6 and 21.00, and will be higher than that at all other > times during the day. From the question : "You want the sun in the picture and you want it as low as possible in the picture." Where low is defined as close to the bottom edge as possible. (This is to me a reasonable definition of lowest point). (Or as close to the horizon in the picture as possible can be used for anything above the horizon as wel). Is your standard definition applicable to the sun IN the PICTURE. If so what is your definition ? ben > If you go far enough north, and turn your camera around to face > north instead of south, your statement that it will be lowest at > noon would then be correct. Anywhere above the Arctic Circle > will be far enough north to demonstrate that effect... ;-) >> For standard definitions of "lowest point", it will be equally >> low at 6 and 21.00, and will be higher than that at all other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"You want the sun in the picture and you want it >as low as possible in the picture." Then the rest of what you are saying does not make sense. The sun is *highest*, not lowest, at noon. >Where low is defined as close to the bottom edge as >possible. (This is to me a reasonable definition of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> >> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>> For standard definitions of "lowest point", it will be equally >>> low at 6 and 21.00, and will be higher than that at all other [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Then the rest of what you are saying does not make sense. > The sun is *highest*, not lowest, at noon. If you reread my thoughtexperiment, and try to figure out where the sun does enter the 60 mm X 2750 frame, it does not enter from the side, but at 6 in the morning it does enter from the top of the picture. To make this more clear us a 60 mm X 60 miles frame. Where would the sun enter in this frame. The angle of the edges of the 60 mm side are so small that this has to be a smaller angle than the sun is making with the horizon at that moment. The sun is above the horizon at a far larger angle than the angle of the edge so it does not come into the frame at the edge but at the top. If the paper is 60 mm high (pointing strait at the horizon), the top half is 30 mm high. The angles that the frame can provide for are the following 0 is the middle. To the sides the distance is given in mm and in the horizontal angle. The third number is the vertical angle that the top half of the paper represents. For a frame 60 mm high the following angles apply From the middle High of paper mm angle angle 0,0000 0,0000 68,199 5,0000 22,620 66,571 12,000 45,000 60,504 20,000 59,036 52,136 2750,0 89,750 0,625 999999 89,999 0,002 I hope the numbers appear correctly as a table. The center is pointed at the noon position. The sun is at a hight of 61.5 degrees so 68.199 degrees is sufficient. (The position of the sun above the horizon is 22.1 mm). The sides of the paper cover only a very limited angle. (.625 degrees). The angle of the sun when it is exactly east (6.00) or exactly west (18.00) is far more than the .625 so the sun does not enter the frame from the side. Because the sun is above the horizon it can not enter the frame from the bottom, so the sun enters the frame from the top. The top is at 30 mm from the horizon in the picture. At noon the sun is 22.10 mm from the horizon. At noon the sun is at it lowest. The curve the sun follows is a hyperbolic curve. The situation is symetric, so the lowest is in the middle. On the start of the spring and the start of the autum, the sun would go in a straint line through the frame, starting at a side and finishing at a side. (This is logical, because if you make a projection from a circle where you are in the midpoint, you get a strait line.) If you are above the circle you get a hyperbolic projection where the top is in the middle of the 'picture'. In the winter the circle the sun makes is below us, we are not in the center. In the summer however the circle the sun makes is above us. So we look to a circle from under the circle. This makes a projection which is a hyperbolic. The hyperbolic shape wil be the lowest in the middle of the picture and highest at the sides or where the hyperbolic shape goes out of the frame. Ben >>Where low is defined as close to the bottom edge as >>possible. (This is to me a reasonable definition of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> >>> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>> For standard definitions of "lowest point", it will be equally >>>> low at 6 and 21.00, and will be higher than that at all other [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > be the lowest in the middle of the picture and highest at the > sides or where the hyperbolic shape goes out of the frame. Uh, Ben, before you continue hauling on your petard you might want to look up the location of Barrow, Alaska. You have miscalculated something, most likely reversing noon and midnight. >>>Where low is defined as close to the bottom edge as >>>possible. (This is to me a reasonable definition of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>>> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> >>>> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>In the summer however the circle the sun makes is above >>us. So we look to a circle from under the circle. This makes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You have miscalculated something, most likely reversing noon and midnight. Also, it is not a hyperbolic shape. It is a spherical trigonometry problem. In another post, I found his error. It is the way he calculates height. Roger >> In the summer however the circle the sun makes is above >> us. So we look to a circle from under the circle. This makes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You have miscalculated something, most likely reversing noon and midnight. I looked up Barrow, Alaska. For the 21st of June it gives 24 hours of sun above the horizon. (So do not go there is you are prone to sunburn). But I am missing the connection with my calculations. The given table was just the angles of a scene the frame (30 mm x 2750 mm) with a 12 mm lens would just contain. And no I do not think that I am reversing noon and midnight. What am I missing ? ben >>> In the summer however the circle the sun makes is above >>> us. So we look to a circle from under the circle. This makes [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >What am I missing ? About 30 years ago when my children were in grade school a teacher showed me an "IQ test" that had been given to the students, which she was grading. She pointed out one question, which was "The sun comes up in which direction?". The possible answers were the four directions, north, east, south and west. The teacher's point was that "IQ tests" are culture centric, and she said that she counted any answer as correct. There is a problem of course for children who live near or above the Arctic Circle where the significance of how the sun and earth interact are *much* more obvious and therefore even young children understand far more about it that the average adult in lower latitudes might. To add even more fuel to that fire, I have always enjoyed citing that particular story at the drop of a hat whenever it demonstrates a point (usually about IQ testing, but equally about testing children in general or about education systems or perhaps culture centric anthropology). I commonly do *not* explain immediately just why any answer is correct, and of course that often results in mistaken statements about the teacher's abilities! One of the more memorable claims made was that it is indeed still a valid question for the test! Every child in northern latitudes should be taught that people in lower latitudes do not understand how the earth interacts with the sun, and instead go by several "rules of thumb", one of which says that the sun necessarily comes up in the east. That claim clearly is based on the concept that Northern children should realize how ignorant Southerners are at the same age that Southerners should learn incorrect concepts about the sun and the earth... ;-) Perhaps that *is* valid? SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > That claim clearly is based on the concept that Northern children > should realize how ignorant Southerners are at the same age that > Southerners should learn incorrect concepts about the sun and > the earth... ;-) That claim should be extended that anywhere on earth children (1) should realize that people living at other places than theirs are probably very ignorant about their (1) local livestyle. I have been 71.10 North, but am not capable of even grasping what it is to live for days, let alone weeks or months in the dark. Also do I not understand living in a cold climate (as yours ?), or living in the tropics. ben >> That claim clearly is based on the concept that Northern children >> should realize how ignorant Southerners are at the same age that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >should realize that people living at other places than theirs are >probably very ignorant about their (1) local livestyle. Except that had nothing to do with lifestyles... >I have been 71.10 North, but am not capable of even grasping >what it is to live for days, let alone weeks or months in the dark. Well, I've lived at that latitude for a decade, and close enough to it for 3 other decades... and I still have no idea what that would be like! We *never* get days or weeks, never mind months of darkness. Never. We do get months with *no* darkness though. >Also do I not understand living in a cold climate (as yours ?), >or living in the tropics. I do. That's why I have moved farther north every time I move... ;-) I don't know what I'm going to do, what with all this global warming. There just isn't any place farther north than this where living can be reasonable. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>> In the summer however the circle the sun makes is above >>> us. So we look to a circle from under the circle. This makes [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > What am I missing ? Get yourself a protractor and a sheet of poster board. Make pieces for each of your angles above the horizon from the table that you got from the web site you referenced (not the numbers from your formula). Arrange them in accordance with your horizontal angles from that site. Put your camera at the junction of the pieces. Look through the viewfinder. Tell us what you see. > ben >>>>In the summer however the circle the sun makes is above >>>>us. So we look to a circle from under the circle. This makes [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the junction of the pieces. Look through the viewfinder. Tell us what you > see. Now take that poster board and curve it and place the camera in the center point of the arc. Snap a pic and it matches Ben's answer. SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com >>>>>In the summer however the circle the sun makes is above >>>>>us. So we look to a circle from under the circle. This makes [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Now take that poster board and curve it and place the camera in the center > point of the arc. Snap a pic and it matches Ben's answer. Please read what was written, not what you _think_ was written. Each piece of poster board is a triangle, with one end adjacent to the lens and the locus of the other ends forming the arc you wish to have created. Instead of hypothesizing, you do the same thing, get the damned poster board and cut the damned triangles and set them out and put the camera at the intersection of the apexes and tell us what you see. >>>>>>In the summer however the circle the sun makes is above >>>>>>us. So we look to a circle from under the circle. This makes [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > and cut the damned triangles and set them out and put the camera at the > intersection of the apexes and tell us what you see. Oops! Sorry. Ben's numbers are incomprehensible to me so I'm a bit lost there. I'm not sure which web site. The one I pasted in the quote below? David J Taylor wrote: > If you want to see the course of the sun throughout the day and at > different times of your, you can try my WXtrack program: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The azimuth and elevation of the sun and moon is given in the > lower-left corner of the display. I could draw that up in AutoCAD & check. SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com >>>>>>>In the summer however the circle the sun makes is above >>>>>>>us. So we look to a circle from under the circle. This makes [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > I could draw that up in AutoCAD & check. That site will work, so will the other that was referenced. Don't draw it in Autocad, make the physical model. Or take a Hula Hoop and put the center at your eyeballs and tilt it and then above your head holding at the same angle and see how the perspective changes when you move out of the plane. [] >> David J Taylor wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and then above your head holding at the same angle and see how the > perspective changes when you move out of the plane. Perhaps do both, so that you see more clearly how the drawing relates to the physical model. David >> Now take that poster board and curve it and place the camera in the >> center point of the arc. Snap a pic and it matches Ben's answer. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > board and cut the damned triangles and set them out and put the camera at > the intersection of the apexes and tell us what you see. As usual the confusion set in. So to get this correct I think that the person who came up with this idea (protractor and a sheet of poster board) should do this exercise to avoid all confusion and get the implementation of the idea right. Then he can post the results of this, and publish some pictures of the implementation of the idea. If somebody else would do this excersize and the results are not as expected by the person who had the idea, that person will object and others in this thread will not be able to differentiate between the idea (one way or the other) and the results it gives (one way or the other). So I put this in the hands of the Original Poster of the idea. And please place the results of the implementation of the idea in this group whatever the outcome of that experiment. ben. > If you go far enough north, and turn your camera around to face > north instead of south, your statement that it will be lowest at > noon would then be correct. Anywhere above the Arctic Circle > will be far enough north to demonstrate that effect... ;-) Except you never gave the border location that you were referring to, so the implication [which is clearly incorrect] is to use the longest common border, which is a fixed lattitude between the Pacific Ocean and Minnesota. You Strange Question was really a puzzle obviously, but the readers here clearly were not aware of that. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> If you go far enough north, and turn your camera around to face >> north instead of south, your statement that it will be lowest at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Strange Question was really a puzzle obviously, but the readers here clearly > were not aware of that. Sorry Floyd -- I thought the OP wrote your message and my response was in that context. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > > <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Question is the frame high enough to capture the > sun at 12.00. Answer yes it is. The way you state this, I have to assume you intend for the horizon to be in the picture. The only reason the size of the frame matters is if you need to capture *something else*, i.e. the horizon. In that position, you "just barely" capture the sun in the frame at noon...it's highest point in the sky, and at the very top of the frame. > Now we are going further with the design, we make > it a very wide angle frame. Say we want to cover 179 > degrees. (Again not practical but it's a thought experiment). > The frame would be 1375 mm from the center, so the > total frame width would be 2750 mm. Huh? Do you mean the "The *edge of the* frame would be 1375 mm from the center, so the total frame width would be 2750 mm." > (So the 'sensor' size is a bit impractical 60 mm high by > 2750 mm width, for the thought experiment). > At around 6 in the morning the sun wil enter the frame. > The sun is at that moment far above the horizon. > Question where does the sun enter the frame ? It would enter very near the middle of the edge. > At around 21.00 in the evening the sun will leave the frame. > The sun is at that moment far above the horizon. > Question where does the sun leave the frame ? Near the middle of the edge. > The sun will not leave the frame between 6 and 21.00. > So there should be a continues path the sun takes in the frame. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ben I follow your thought experiment. But you have made a mistake. For the sun to be lower in the frame at noon, the camera would have to be tilted very high, so that the sun is no longer "barely in the frame" at noon. If, in fact, the sun was at the top of the frame at Noon, then the entire track would be either at the top of the frame or *lower*. If the lens is pointed low enough to capture the south horizon, (with the way you set up the sensor/lens) the sun will never be at it's lowest point at noon. You could accomplish what you attempted if you simply said "the lens/camera is positioned so that the noon sun is below the center of the frame" and then you would have been correct; but that is not the scenario you set up. Your original post: > "Suppose you live on the border between the US and Canada. > It's june and you make a photograph due south. (So the camera [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as low as possible in the picture. > At what time should you take the picture ?" Stating "directly pointed towards the south" *strongly* implies that the horizon (the south) will be at the center of the frame (south is centered vertically as well as horizontally) and the camera will not be tilted up at all. from there, there is no escaping that the sun will be highest at local noon. You also make the statement: > The sun wil appear the lowest in the picture on a south pointed camera at > around 12:00 noon. > You need an extreme wideangle to capture the sun at that moment, > or by tilting the camera will bring it in the frame. Suggesting that the sun be at the top of the frame. It's all down from there, even on June 21. IF you simply specified that the camera was due south (not the same as "directly south") and that the camera was tilted up so that the noon sun was at the bottom of the frame (or anyplace below center vertically), then the morning sun would enter at the top (or at least high) and leave at the top; but you suggest the noon sun would be *barely* in the frame by tilting the camera high enough to capture it. A good attempt, but you did not think the problem through before you wrote it. Austin AustinMN Wrote: > snip- > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Austin I'd have to guess that the sun is "behind" you at 49 degrees north o June 21st facing due south. While reading through the thread I though the answer would be that it couldn't be seen looking due south, so mor fair a question than I had guessed. -Mar -- MASL > I'd have to guess that the sun is "behind" you at 49 degrees north on > June 21st facing due south. While reading through the thread I thought > the answer would be that it couldn't be seen looking due south, so more > fair a question than I had guessed. You have to live in the tropics for it to be behind you. Scott > > I'd have to guess that the sun is "behind" you at 49 degrees north >on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You have to live in the tropics for it to be behind you. Trust me, I *don't* live in the tropics. Yet the sun, where I do live, spends much of its time behind anyone looking south. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > I'd have to guess that the sun is "behind" you at 49 degrees north on > June 21st facing due south. While reading through the thread I thought > the answer would be that it couldn't be seen looking due south, so more > fair a question than I had guessed. At 49 degrees latitude north, no matter what the time of year, the sun is in front of you if you are facing south, assuming there is daylight. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>I'd have to guess that the sun is "behind" you at 49 degrees north on >>June 21st facing due south. While reading through the thread I thought [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > At 49 degrees latitude north, no matter what the time of year, the sun is in > front of you if you are facing south, assuming there is daylight. Not near sunrise and sunset. At 49 degrees north, the sun sets north of the east-west line in between the beginning of spring and the end of summer. If you are looking south at that time, then the sun will be behind you. Roger >> I'd have to guess that the sun is "behind" you at 49 degrees north on >> June 21st facing due south. While reading through the thread I thought [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >At 49 degrees latitude north, no matter what the time of year, the sun is in >front of you if you are facing south, assuming there is daylight. Wrong. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > At 49 degrees latitude north, no matter what the time of year, the > sun is in front of you if you are facing south, assuming there is > daylight. Since you stick to your prejudice despite all the explanations, perhaps you should just wait until next summer (any time well after the equinox) and then go out and look. It doesn't have to be at dawn or dusk, just around 6a.m. or 6p.m. (when the sun should be visible). Take a compass with you, or stand in a road known to be east/west. Observation is the truest form of demonstration! Mike. SignatureIf reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee. > > I'd have to guess that the sun is "behind" you at 49 degrees north on > > June 21st facing due south. While reading through the thread I thought [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > At 49 degrees latitude north, no matter what the time of year, the sun is in > front of you if you are facing south, assuming there is daylight. Have you ever actually been to any of these latitudes about which you are so insistent? You are wrong, very wrong, about the sun's insistence on being in front of us yet you just will not give up. Cheers, Luke SignatureLincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET) Swansea City 2-2 Southend United We went up twice with Tilly and Brush >The sun wil appear the lowest in the picture on a south pointed camera at >around 12:00 noon. I completely fail to understand what you mean with 'lowest' in this context. I'd say that lowest is when the sun is just above the horizon and highest is at noon. I think that is obviously true if you take a 360 degrees panarama camera that uses a cylindrical projection. This avoids the need to point the camera south. Pointing the camera south means taking a part of the 360 degrees image (with the center in the south direction) and changing the projection to rectilinear. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>The sun wil appear the lowest in the picture on a south pointed camera at >>around 12:00 noon. > > I completely fail to understand what you mean with 'lowest' in this > context. If the horizon is in the frame of the picture, with lowest I mean the position of the sun where the distance to the horizon is the minimum. (Take the picture and a ruler, measure the distance from (the middle of) the sun to the horizon.) For the horizon I assume that it is exactly horizontal in the picture and that it forms a strait line. > I'd say that lowest is when the sun is just above the horizon and highest > is at noon. The question was about where the sun is in the picture. (After a projection). Not where it is in the sky. > I think that is obviously true if you take a 360 degrees panarama camera > that uses a cylindrical projection. This avoids the need to point the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (with the center in the south direction) and changing the projection to > rectilinear. Yes this would give you the same result I asume. Changing the projection rectilinear that is (as you said), not just flatten out the panorama. The answer that the sun is the lowest in the picture at 12.00 is so counter intuitief, that most people do not accept it and/or do not understand it. I would have thought that some people in this newsgroup would be familiar enough with projection of images. (In this case the circle the sun is following in the sky projected over one point (middle of the lens) to a flat surface.) *) I am familiar with the common sense conception that the earth is orbiting the sun and not vice versa. But for this understanding one can 'invert' that Idea and see that the sun is describing a daily circle around the polar axes of the world. In the summer we are below that circle. In the winter we are above that circle. ben > The answer that the sun is the lowest in the picture at 12.00 is so > counter intuitief, that most people do not accept it and/or do not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the sun is following in the sky projected over one point (middle > of the lens) to a flat surface.) Huh??? >> The answer that the sun is the lowest in the picture at 12.00 is so >> counter intuitief, that most people do not accept it and/or do not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Huh??? This reaction is a little limited to give a response to. But it could be that you belong to the group of people that do not accept and/or do not understand the answer. So thereby your reaction confirms the quoted. Thanks for your participation. ben >>>The answer that the sun is the lowest in the picture at 12.00 is so >>>counter intuitief, that most people do not accept it and/or do not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that do not accept and/or do not understand the answer. > So thereby your reaction confirms the quoted. I have no idea what you are describing. Something about rectalinear projection of a rounded universe??? Please explain more clearly. SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > This reaction is a little limited to give a response to. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for your participation. OK ... you are sounding very very trollish here. No matter what time of year, when at a lattitude north of the tropics, the sun is NEVER over your head and never behind you if you face south. NEVER. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> This reaction is a little limited to give a response to. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >when at a lattitude north of the tropics, the sun is NEVER over your head and >never behind you if you face south. NEVER. On June 21st the sun at midnight is directly *north* of anyone who is at least as far north as the Arctic Circle. Which is also to say that on at least one day the sun sets and rises essentially at due north in all locations north of the Arctic Circle. Anyone at a latitude higher than the Tropic of Cancer will see the sun at a northern angle from due east or due west when it rises or sets. Your statement is true only for the period of time between the autumnal equinox and the vernal equinox (in essense, the &q |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message