Angular resolution limits...hmm, thats a new one for me...
Really? I would have thought you’d encountered it before. It’s a fancy term for a simple thing. We can’t see really tiny things - like let’s say single animal cells or bacteria - without magnification. It has to do with the size and spacing of our receptors, and the “processing” from them. The same thing is true of the boat in your video. It is not that there is something in the way, but that the boat is too small for us to see (aka beyond our angular resolution limit) without magnification (the same as the cells and the bacteria and for the same reasons!).
Yes, actually, this is just fine logic, just using a weird term for focal range.
That’s basically right!
If we can see things that should be "over the curve", then its not possible that a curve is blocking the view.
Thus, the earth cannot be curved and must me flat.
This is where the error lies. The boat in your video isn’t “over the curve” yet. That’s why you can zoom in on it and see it again. When the boat is “over the curve” or some of it is obscured/hidden by that “curve” - zooming in won’t work.
We know that it isn’t a curve/hump/hill of water obscuring the distant ship - but most believe it is due to miseducation.
The observation shown in your video doesn’t depend on a flat or spherical (but effectively flat because of the scale we experience) world.
It’s roughly the measure of the angle difference between the light coming from the top of the object and the bottom of it as it enters the eye/reciever. If that angle is too small, we can’t resolve the image.
Resolution limits too
They are generally one and the same, and caused by the same thing - the physical concentration of light detectors and the method of processing the image.
Or just a pixel thing?
Same thing as the resolution limits above, just a different word.
I would say out of optical range when something is too small to see.
I agree, however the term i used also implies that the object’s light is actually still reaching the observer/detector - it just can’t be resolved into an object due to lack of adequate resolution.
The boat, which is about 5 miles or more out to sea, and still there is visable horizon behind it.
True.
So how could a curve be possible? Its not. Thus, earth must be flat.
In the view of the globe believers, the horizon and its ability to hide distant objects from the bottom up and reveal them from the top down as they approach is the curve.
In both their view, and ours - the boats in this video are not far enough out to be hidden by the horizon (which is itself an optical illusion, as well as the setting/rising phenomena of distant objects interacting with it). That is why we can zoom in and see them. When they are further than that point, and are truly hidden “beyond the horizon” - zooming in will not bring them back.
It is a logical error to assume that the ability for the horizon to obscure distant objects is proof of a globe. Likewise, and for the same reasons, it is also a logical error to assume that observations like this prove it flat.
They are still following politics like democracy is real
The tv/screens are bad for our health :( Especially if you believe what you see on them is true!
Anyway, it is my view that it is up to us who see to help the others - if we can. We’ll have to keep trying! Repetition works on everyone.
Premise : The world is spherical.
Observation : The horizon obscures objects from the bottom up as they recede.
Conclusion : Therefore the world is spherical.
This is circular logic, and hence a logical error - right?
Here is your example, distilled.
Premise : The world is flat.
Observation : I can zoom in on distant ships no longer visible and see the ship and horizon behind them.
Conclusion Therefore the world is flat.
Like the globe believers view, the observation may support the premise - but the conclusion doesn’t (necessarily) follow from it. The conclusion follows from the premise, hence the circular logic.
Furthermore the real trick here is that the ships being zoomed in on in the video are not beyond the horizon yet, they are too close to the observer (for the viewing/weather conditions anyway - we know that the apparent horizon varies in distance with those conditions). If they were obscured (or partially obscured) as in the observation from the globe perspective - then zooming in on them will not unobscure/reveal them.
The reason the boats are no longer visible in your video is NOT because the horizon has obscured them, but because they have (apparently, not actually!) shrunk to be too small to see unaided due to their distance from the observer.
Because the ship can be seen at a distance that is farther than would be possible on a curved earth.
This is surely evidence that something is wrong with the globe model, but different than proving the world flat or spherical. As we know, a die hard believer will just say “refraction” (or some other contrived explanation) and continue to believe the horizon is a fixed edge even when such distant observations are confirmed anyway.
it took me hearing flat earth a lot of times before i actually did the work to research myself. yes, repetition
We were convinced the world was spherical through conditioning by rote from childhood under the guise of education. Undoing that bias takes the same repetition.
Really? I would have thought you’d encountered it before. It’s a fancy term for a simple thing. We can’t see really tiny things - like let’s say single animal cells or bacteria - without magnification. It has to do with the size and spacing of our receptors, and the “processing” from them. The same thing is true of the boat in your video. It is not that there is something in the way, but that the boat is too small for us to see (aka beyond our angular resolution limit) without magnification (the same as the cells and the bacteria and for the same reasons!).
That’s basically right!
This is where the error lies. The boat in your video isn’t “over the curve” yet. That’s why you can zoom in on it and see it again. When the boat is “over the curve” or some of it is obscured/hidden by that “curve” - zooming in won’t work.
We know that it isn’t a curve/hump/hill of water obscuring the distant ship - but most believe it is due to miseducation.
The observation shown in your video doesn’t depend on a flat or spherical (but effectively flat because of the scale we experience) world.
It’s roughly the measure of the angle difference between the light coming from the top of the object and the bottom of it as it enters the eye/reciever. If that angle is too small, we can’t resolve the image.
They are generally one and the same, and caused by the same thing - the physical concentration of light detectors and the method of processing the image.
Same thing as the resolution limits above, just a different word.
I agree, however the term i used also implies that the object’s light is actually still reaching the observer/detector - it just can’t be resolved into an object due to lack of adequate resolution.
True.
In the view of the globe believers, the horizon and its ability to hide distant objects from the bottom up and reveal them from the top down as they approach is the curve.
In both their view, and ours - the boats in this video are not far enough out to be hidden by the horizon (which is itself an optical illusion, as well as the setting/rising phenomena of distant objects interacting with it). That is why we can zoom in and see them. When they are further than that point, and are truly hidden “beyond the horizon” - zooming in will not bring them back.
It is a logical error to assume that the ability for the horizon to obscure distant objects is proof of a globe. Likewise, and for the same reasons, it is also a logical error to assume that observations like this prove it flat.
The tv/screens are bad for our health :( Especially if you believe what you see on them is true!
Anyway, it is my view that it is up to us who see to help the others - if we can. We’ll have to keep trying! Repetition works on everyone.
I’ll try to distill it.
In the case of the globe perspective :
Premise : The world is spherical.
Observation : The horizon obscures objects from the bottom up as they recede.
Conclusion : Therefore the world is spherical.
This is circular logic, and hence a logical error - right?
Here is your example, distilled.
Premise : The world is flat.
Observation : I can zoom in on distant ships no longer visible and see the ship and horizon behind them.
Conclusion Therefore the world is flat.
Like the globe believers view, the observation may support the premise - but the conclusion doesn’t (necessarily) follow from it. The conclusion follows from the premise, hence the circular logic.
Furthermore the real trick here is that the ships being zoomed in on in the video are not beyond the horizon yet, they are too close to the observer (for the viewing/weather conditions anyway - we know that the apparent horizon varies in distance with those conditions). If they were obscured (or partially obscured) as in the observation from the globe perspective - then zooming in on them will not unobscure/reveal them.
The reason the boats are no longer visible in your video is NOT because the horizon has obscured them, but because they have (apparently, not actually!) shrunk to be too small to see unaided due to their distance from the observer.
This is surely evidence that something is wrong with the globe model, but different than proving the world flat or spherical. As we know, a die hard believer will just say “refraction” (or some other contrived explanation) and continue to believe the horizon is a fixed edge even when such distant observations are confirmed anyway.
We were convinced the world was spherical through conditioning by rote from childhood under the guise of education. Undoing that bias takes the same repetition.