Optical Occultation of the Sun
(youtu.be)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
I know you believe that. The question is why? There is no plane/direction/dimension in which objects don’t appear smaller as they recede.
Yes, because width is linear not circular. As the object moves horizontally it will necessarily increase distance from the observer and appear smaller. It’s an optical law - there are no exceptions.
If the object remained the same distance from the observer then it wouldn’t change apparent size - but we are talking about when objects do increase distance from the observer. Do you honestly believe that the sun (and ships, and anything else that appears to set “over the horizon”) is really NOT increasing distance from the observer as it moves?
Yes, of course. That’s my whole point. It’s called perspective, and it always applies - regardless of size/scale or distance. Including the sun (which does decrease in apparent size as its distance increases), there are no examples of any object NOT decreasing in apparent size as they recede. Please feel free to suggest one (other than the sun), if you disagree!
This is incorrect. Astronomers talk about/calculate the distances [depth] to those objects (located by ascension and declination) all the time.
You seem to be confusing topography with topology. The sky is not 2D even if our plotting system for locating things in it was (which it also isn’t, it is conceived to be a spherical grid)
You doubt that planes change apparent size as they recede away from you? Go look at them! What better “base” for a claim is there than your own observations?!
You seem to be confusing depth and size. Depth is hard/impossible to determine at some point because the pictures received by the eyes are essentially identical (no parallax) - (apparent) size is not effected and can be easily observed monocularly (one eye, no depth).
I, personally, wouldn’t bother and there are far better/easier targets than that one. There are certainly those (with powerful, expensive, auto-tracking telescopes) who can get you this shot you want though. Again, why do you believe these silly things? There are no examples of objects receding not changing apparent [angular] size, and i cannot understand why you think there are. It is as if you don’t understand why things appear smaller as they recede...
This is obviously wrong, and trivially calculable/demonstrable. The refraction may be slight, but light ALWAYS refracts when the refractive index changes. Again, i cannot understand why you would ever believe it wouldn’t, or what reasoning you could concoct to support that view.
Of course it does. Over short distances (and depending on angle of the light) it is imperceptible, but it is always there (just like angular size differences and for somewhat analogous reasons).
The more air the light travels through and the further it traverses through/across the gradient the more it refracts towards the ground. This is also the reason why the visible horizon appears slightly lower as you increase in altitude. It isn’t actually lower... it is being refracted.
No, diffraction (like refraction) is also objective and has nothing to do with perception. The object appears fuzzy because the light from it has been scattered by the air/matter in the way. I am not talking about diffraction, i am talking about refraction.
Hey, you’ll get no argument from me. I was just mentioning that many scientists and textbook authors define it that way.
Diffraction is caused by blocking light, refraction is caused by changing lights speed.
There are no “globr” explanations. There are just explanations, and they either right or wrong (usually the latter). Refraction does occur in our air, and though this is commonly used as an “out”/rationalization/excuse by those obligated to the globe model in order to ignore observable evidence of a (mostly) planar earth - that is NOT what i’m doing!
And what if it was? Would you want to know? If it wasn’t, and i were wrong - i would like to know that and to know how i can validate/demonstrate that!
They can (and do/will) claim anything they want - though the refraction i am talking about tends to curve things down - not up again. If you assumed the world was spherical, as they are required to, then this could be used to explain why things can be seen “too far”. I don’t care about the tactical soundness in regards to the base pageantry and silly game of debate - i care about what is actually happening. Just because the fact that the air refracts can serve their rationalizations, doesn’t make what i am saying incorrect/false in and of itself.
You are mistaken. The diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth. It happens with monocular vision (one eye, no depth). I don’t know where you picked this up.
This is an interesting claim - but i think it is wrong. The distance to the horizon changes with weather, the limits of the human eye are fixed (assuming you don’t grow old that is!).
Although the brain, and eye, has many ways of interpreting depth (one eyed people can do it too!) - the chief one that most are familiar with is parallax. If the picture the right and left eye receive are different, their comparison can be used to estimate/experience depth. At a certain distance (i expect well beyond the measly few miles to the visible horizon) - the pictures that the eyes receive are not different enough to reliably use that method. This is certainly a limit/function of human sight, but doesn’t have anything to do with the visible horizon or the angular resolution limits (aka diffraction limit).
I think i get it, and have encountered and considered such ideas before. I also think it is clearly wrong, and if it were right - we should be able to observe such an effect on a smaller scale (perhaps with much smaller eyes and much closer together with less pixel density - which IS diffraction limit). The fact that we can’t is very telling.
Depth perception isn’t necessary for sight in any significant way. Closing one eye doesn’t make anything disappear / “occult” anything. I have seen such demonstrations as well and the cause is likely (once again) refraction (this time caused by the ground temperature causing air column gradient inversion) - the mirror on the hot road effect and/or actual obstruction by the road itself (which is not perfectly flat, sadly).
If “perception” were the cause, then magnification could restore the “occulted” portion. This cannot be done. The reason is because it isn’t perceptional - the light from the bottom of the “set” object is no longer reaching the distant observer.
Likewise, and agreed!
Repetition is, alas, necessary for effective communication. I do try to avoid it, but if you misunderstand my position - repeating/rephrasing it is prudent. I would hope you would do, and are doing, the same in order for your perspective to be fully understood in kind. I know it is tedious, but education and effective communication are worth it!
Never! I loathe the base pageantry of debate. It’s for fools.
I prefer civil rational discourse and the collaborative pursuit of the truth - as all competent/capable students do.
I will always disagree when it is appropriate, and explain my reasoning/evidence at length - and i hope you can also do the same without letting it devolve into (or feel like it is) an argument/mindless debate.
Debate is a stupid game, and it is best avoided by the intelligent.
I may do that, but i think you have helped me “get it”. Now i want to validate/test it. I currently think it is simply wrong.
nice wall of wrong u created
“There is no plane/direction/dimension in which objects don’t appear smaller as they recede.” 1 wrong – is an airplane 15 miles above you on the same plane as you, if you think so – you dony understand words “because width is linear not circular.” 2 - i never said it was circular, circular is not even a dimension, so put the crack pipe down and listen and stop making up shit “Do you honestly believe that the sun (and ships, and anything else that appears to set “over the horizon”) is really NOT increasing distance from the observer as it moves?” 3 i never said that = stop using your bird skill to make up shit r i never said, your limit of depth is all around you, if you think th horizon is the limit of ALL sight, you would never be able to see the sun , cause itsa always further away than that distance, hence it is never perceived in 3d 4 “yes, apparent size change with perspective last forever? Wrong – stars are only perceived in 2d – right ascension and declination , or length and width, i dont care what you think, its wrong – all of astronomy knows this already. “Astronomers talk about/calculate the distances” 5 assumption to do calculations are NOT PERCEPTION, dahhhhhhhhhhh “ The sky is not 2D even if our plotting system for locating things in it was (which it also isn’t, it is conceived to be a spherical grid” 6 of course its only ever perceived in 2d, u assume the 3rd dimension and then tell yourself your not assuming anything, cause not too smart. Let me give you an example, ok i got these two pennies, but just imaging its a big pile of coins, i can cgi draw you a big pile of coins , i can also calculate what that pile is worth – now how much are you going to pay for this big pile of coins? Im only asking for 1000$ - its a bargain for such a huge pile.... “You doubt that planes change apparent size as they recede away from you? 7 your the one making the positive claim they should – show me some video of the iss changing size as it crosses the sky and gets bigger as it goes overhead of you, waiting.... “You seem to be confusing depth and size. “ 8 – projection, u do “ one eye, no depth” 9 – wrong , u still perceive depth with one eye, u just cant handle the fact it ends at the horizon, cause denile is the basis for your space monkey religion (you can drop the stupid claim your a flat earthr, youre not fooling anyone) “blah blah blah” so you cant prove that with you claim but are going to rage for 4 pages of derp if someones tell you how silly and utterly wrong that which you were taught to parrot is wrong ? LooooooolL, your tears are delicious. “but light ALWAYS refracts when the refractive index changes. “ 10 – ok whats the refractive index for Air like .0003? cOMPARED TO WATER WHICH IS LIKE .3? sO IN YOUR EXAMPLE THIS LIGHT GOING THROUGH .0003148975 REFRACTIVE INDEX GOES THOUGH .000314874, ReFECTIVE INDX OVER 4 MILeS – HOW MUCH CUrVE DO YOU SEE? Hit me with your maths dude
“ I was just mentioning that many scientists and textbook authors define it that way. 11 citation needed
“There are no “globr” explanations” 12 – wrong – thy make me vomit with disgust on being so ignorant of reality
“Refraction does occur in our air, “ no it doesnt and if or when it does – it because of drastic changes in air and the amount that happens is NEVER noticeable “i care about what is actually happening.” 13 – ok if u really do , than air doesnt cause ANY noticeable refraction, EVER. ALSO YOUR DEPTH Perception ENDs AT THE DIFFRACTION LiMIT , AKA THE HORIZOn., which exists all around you “ The diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth. It happens with monocular vision” 14 wrong , ill prove it .hold up a cube, say 1 foot from your eye , identify each dimension of the cube. Now close one eye, did depth disappear, no! The diffraction limit is because the reflected light that allows you to preserve thast dimension is no longer able to reach your eyes or eye. “ the chief one that most are familiar with is parallax. “ 16 wrong , your comparing your depth perception in one eye and comparing the depth perception in the other eye , u dont need 2 eyes to perceive depth “I think i get it, and have encountered and considered such ideas before. I also think it is clearly wrong,” 17 – no you demonstrated how you dont get it and you've never encountered it before – citation or have you just gon back to amk stuff up and just hoping i wont notice? “Closing one eye doesn’t make anything disappear “ Correct, but congrats on contradicting your self, when you said one eye – no depth, lol “ I have seen such demonstrations as well and the cause is likely (once again) refraction “
18 word salad explanation, depth is not a change in med I have seen such demonstrations as well and the cause is likely (once again) refraction ium, therefore refraction cant be occuring, the problem here s again – you demonstrated you dont know what the word refraction is , and you use it like a rent A nurse to cover up your booboo. Plz – grow up. “If “perception” were the cause, then magnification could restore the “occulted” portion.” 19 “perception is never the cause of anything, and you can zoom in on what you thought was the horizon and see a boat is still there “Repetition is, alas, necessary for effective communication.” wrong, u can only get stupid people to parrot you, thats not what i need and why i believe talking to you is non productive.
Also dont reply and waste my time or ill just report you for trolling, Learn it or dont - i dont care, just stop pretending you know it already cause yoiu dont.
Well, you could (flippantly) say that about anything! Try not to let your emotion get the better of you. There is no shame in being wrong. It happens to us all the time.
When i tell you that your views are incorrect, I am not insulting you, belittling your intelligence, or intending any offense. You shouldn’t feel threatened or attacked! Discussion necessarily involves disagreement and we must become comfortable with that in order to effectively communicate and learn from one another.
Stay frosty brother or sister!
Planes (not airplanes!) are imaginary. If you mean the “plane” of your sight, yes - when you are looking at a plane (normal planes you are likely to see aren’t anywhere near this height) 15 miles above you then yes, it is in the same plane as you. Our vision is spherical, like the eye. I do not understand your fixation with 2d conceptual structures that don’t exist in reality (like declination and ascension).
I agree with the latter! As for the former, you seem to have forgotten what you said. You described moving an object, with respect to an observer, in the dimension of width. There are only three dimensions - they are arbitrary conventions. They are linear, not circular.
You (rhetorically) asked if moving the object in the dimension of width would change its distance (and hence its apparent size) and expected (incorrectly) the answer to be no. The ONLY way for the answer to be no, is for the dimension of width you described to be circular. That is the ONLY way for the object to move horizontally AND remain the same distance (and hence angular size) from the observer. As usual, please let me know if you disagree, or don’t understand what i’m saying!
Bird skill? What does that mean?
I am not making shit up that you never said, and i am not trying to misrepresent your position. I am earnestly interpreting what you say and conveying that interpretation as well as asking earnest questions about it. If my interpretation is incorrect (as it necessarily will be), correct it! And stay frosty! We are not arguing, and we are not debating, we are just having a discussion!
The visible horizon line is the limit of ALL sight, but not because of its distance from you - it’s because of the stuff in the way (air mostly)! That’s why its distance changes with weather conditions! If you look slightly above that horizon line, you are looking through less air! Hence you can see farther. This is the same reason you can see farther from higher altitude.
I agree that the sun is (grossly) not perceived with the naked eye as being 3d, but not because it is beyond the varying distance to the visible horizon line (a few miles) - it’s because it is too far away for the observed location to vary as perceived from the left and right eyes at any instant.
I agree with both statements! They are in no way conflicting or contradictory. 2D is all that is required to see differences in size caused by distance. Apparent size change always varies by distance to the observer, regardless of that distance. I have no idea why or how you think they wouldn’t/don’t.
Perception is also beyond sight - conception. The stars are perceived by astronomers (and most everyone else) as having depth [distance]. We are in agreement that, at any given instant, their depth cannot be discerned with the eyes and appear in 2D.
I do presume that the sky is real, as are the lights in it, and that the world/universe we inhabit is three dimensional - including very far away from us where our eyes can’t perceive depth. You don’t?
I didn’t make any clams about the iss, but as i said - there are people who can get you what you want. Tracking the iss with a telescope is very difficult, and takes a very expensive rig.
Go outside, and watch a plane as it flies away from you. It will change its apparent size as it does so. Or just continue to pretend i’m wrong and believe whatever you want - but then you accept that your view (perception) of the world is from belief instead of study/observation. I don’t recommend the latter.
You don’t seem to know what the term you are using means. The diffraction limit / angular resolution limit has to do with resolving objects at a distance - perception of depth is not involved.
Lol, i am the one saying they are separate and distinct. Apparent size exists and is perceived without any necessary perception of depth. I am not “projecting” my views, and if i were you would no longer confuse the two. If i am misrepresenting your view, it is only because i don’t understand it. Don’t get upset - just try again to explain!
Yes, though that isn’t our perception because the brain (and possibly eye as well) has many ways to estimate depth. The primary perception/experience of depth comes from parallax and requires two eyes. That’s why they don’t make 3D glasses for one eyed people. It isn’t possible to do, but if you were correct it would be! You honestly think a 3D monocle is possible? Please build one - earnestly, i mean it. I want to see it, and lots of people who have sight in only one eye would too!
This is wrong. Where did you pick this up? Diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth perception, but to resolving an object. If you can resolve an object then you can see it. If you can see it and it differs in appearance from the left and right eyes then you can see depth. If you can see it and its appearance does not discernibly differ from one eye to another, then you cannot see depth (though your brain/eye has other ways to estimate depth when it can’t see it).
It would be very interesting if this were true. i could “handle” it just fine and would in fact be happy to learn it if it were true. However, as i said - the distance to the visible horizon varies with weather - whatever fixed limit exists in the eye would not... As eye spacing, ability to focus, and resolving ability/diffraction limit (chiefly governed by receptor density) varies from person to person this fixed limit would also vary (different people would be able to perceive depth up to differing distances) and yet the visible horizon is still the same exact distance from all observers... (this is the reverse of the previous statement).
Lol. Stay frosty! We are not enemies, and this is not an argument / mindless debate! This is a discussion! We can, and should!, disagree and be able to discuss/explore those disagreements without letting emotion get the better of us. In fact, we MUST if we ever want to learn from one another - which i very much do! Hopefully you are of a similar mind!
I never claimed to be a flat earther, and somewhat constantly deny/correct people when they make that mistaken assumption. I am a flat earth researcher and my perspective on the shape of the world is more accurately dubbed globe skepticism/denial. I share your distaste for the religion of scientism and am fully aware that “outer space” is religious fiction (and always was; the coimbra jesuits are responsible for its invention as far as i can trace back)
You have been suffering/engaging too much with the flat earth psyop. It’s bad for you, and encourages the mindless and self defeating (false) enmity you are exhibiting. Shouldn’t we be working together to understand the world and share our particular views on it in order to learn from each other and to refine our own views? The psyop encourages “flat earthers” and “globers” to mindlessly bicker, condescend, and insult so that they never collaborate and so communication is impossible. Don’t fall for it! Stay frosty!
Well now we’re getting somewhere! We went from “air doesn’t refract” to “ok, air refracts but it does’t refract much”. That’s progress as far as i’m concerned!
As for calculation and what the refractive index for air is - that is a bit more complicated. The refractive index changes with the airs pressure/concentration/density (which varies, typically, with altitude in a gradient) and with its contents. Air is not just full of gas - there are lots of other things commingling - especially as you get closer to the surface. We may want to put a pin in this sub-discussion and circle back to it later.
I typically don’t bother. I’m not writing a research paper - i’m just having a discussion. Believe whatever you want, but when you choose NOT to research a claim don’t delude yourself into thinking you have validated or refuted it as a result! In any case, it isn’t a view i agree with so discussing it further seems moot.
Have pity and empathy [heart]. We were most all “globers” once, and we are most all ignorant of reality (and perhaps worse - just plain wrong about what we deludedly think we are NOT ignorant of).
There are no “flatties” or “globetards”. There is no “flat earth theory” or “globe earth theory”. There is no war between them. That’s all flat earth psyop propaganda. There are only people, with varying views on reality which are generally and historically speaking all incorrect. We should be collaborating together to determine the objective reality as best we can - not dividing into balkanized camps. our enemies prefer us divided because it is easier to conquer us that way ;)
I really and truly do. And i am not afraid or ashamed to be wrong or admit that i am/was. None of us should be. We all have tremendous experience with being stupid and wrong, and despite our best efforts we will in the future too. The real tragedy is never recognizing how/why/that we were stupid and wrong, and it is frightfully easy to do.
I disagree, and my position is that that noticeable (observable) refraction is the cause of the optical illusion of setting/rising, the apparent lowering of the visible horizon from altitude, and many other noticeable things.
Your (clear) SIGHT ends at the diffraction limit. depth perception likely quits long before that depending on object size and distance.
The visible horizon isn’t exactly the diffraction limit - and the diffraction limit depends on the size of the object as well as the receptor density in the eye. Things that are large enough can be seen/resolved from the distance of the visible horizon (and far beyond those measly few miles). If the horizon were the diffraction limit - this would not be possible. Also, things wouldn’t set or rise into/out of it - they would shrink to points and then disappear. Small boats approaching the horizon are a good example of this. They do shrink to dots and disappear as they approach the diffraction limit and go beyond it. But they do that long before they reach the visible horizon. That is the reason that they can be zoomed in upon and resolved again. This is distinctly different than objects that have gone “over the horizon” (aka “set”). The obscured parts of the objects set cannot be resolved no matter what magnification is used. If your view were correct, they could be. Why do you think they can’t?
True. You can (and do) perceive depth from 2D images. But real/actual depth perception comes from parallax - the other kinds are a trick/processing technique of the mind (there are speculations on emission from the eye as well, which would potentially allow for the monocular 3D you believe exists - but perhaps wed better leave such speculative tangents aside for now)
I’m not “new on the block”, i’ve encountered the claim that perspective is responsible for sunset many times before - it is very common. If i still don’t get it, help me to! I am starting to think that you may not “get it”, or perhaps just lack the ability to convey it to me. You are saying (my interpretation, not an intentional misrepresentation - don’t get mad!) that the things we see that are close to us (and have perceivable depth) are blocking the view of things that are too far away to perceive depth even though they are not in line with/obstructing one another. I am saying that doesn’t make sense, and isn’t consistent with what we see or well established optical laws. I am also saying you can’t demonstrate that this phenomena exists by scale demonstration (unlike my view, which can). Please correct me if i am wrong!
Not if it has gone over the horizon, no. When the ship (or sun, or anything else that sets) is missing its bottom due to setting - it cannot be restored through magnification. this is a common popularized mistake propagated by the flat earth psyop. It is trivial to refute and observe that this is untrue, so people who fall for this claim and repeat it are made to seem uninformed/ignorant/stupid as a result (by design).
It’s what we all need friend. Repetition is necessary for effective communication. Language is imprecise, interpretation is subjective, and even if they weren’t - we aren’t perfect.
" But real/actual depth perception comes from parallax "
WRONG - YOU ARE COMPARING ONE DEPTH PERCEPTION TO A SECOND EXAMPLE OF DEPTH PERCEPION, THAT DOESNT CREATE DEPTH OR DEPTH PERCEPTION, ITS SIMPLY A COMPARISON. aS TO WHY THERE IS NO NOTIBLE PARRALAX IN THE STARS IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PERCIEVABLE DEPTH, GET THAT THOUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, SOON - LIKE THIS YEAR
There is only the one - actual depth perception. It comes from having two vantage points a known distance apart from one another and comparing the different images. The brain has tricks to approximate such things when that data is not available - the way we can “see/perceive” three dimensions when looking at a two dimensional image, or blocking one eye - but this isn’t real depth perception - it’s an estimation based on light/shadow and other things.
Stars (of which planets are one type - the “wandering” kind) DO have noticeable parallax which is how determinations of their depth are calculated. The planets have parallax from two observers spread out on the world, and stars have parallax over the course of the year.
In any case, this is all moot because we are in agreement. When looking at a star or planet with your eyes you do not perceive depth (because they are too far away, and our eyes are too close together).
here aNH EXAMPLE OF YOUR CRAZY
"I’m not “new on the block”, i’ve encountered the claim that perspective is responsible for sunset many times before - it is very common."
iM NOT SAYING "PERSCPECTIVE" CAUSE SUNSETS, STOP PUTTING YOUR STUPID IN MY MOUTH, THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF HOW YOURE WRONG KEEPS GROWING EXPEMENTIOALLY THE LONGER I TALK TO YOU, YOU ARE A BLACK HOLE OF ERROR
The video you shared does. Anyway, as i said - you are saying something a little different which i stated (my understanding/interpretation of) clearly in the last comment. Did you see it? Responding to it may help me to understand, and you to explain now and in the future, your position.
I’m not intending to do that. As i said, i earnestly receive and interpret what you say and share that with you so that you can correct it if needed. Why not just correct it, instead of mindless emotional tirade that serves no one, explains/clarifies nothing, and makes you stressed?!
Perhaps, but if this is so - i should like to know how i can determine/validate that for myself and do better! If you were, in fact, the black hole of error - wouldn’t you want the same?!
"Repetition is necessary for effective communication."
YA - FOR IDIOTS LIKE YOURSELF
WHERE'S THE POST THAT MY GOAL IS TRYING TO CONVINCE IDIOTS OF A THING, IM NOT. there IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO EVER CHANGE, NOTHING. YOU WILL DIE AN IDIOT - 100% POSITIVE.
For idiots and geniuses alike. All humans require repetition to effectively communicate and learn. There is no shame in admitting that reality.
Who said you were?
Again, try to stay cool. You are letting your emotions get the better of you, and misconstruing attacks on/criticism of your views as criticisms of yourself - necessitating/justifying this embarrassing attack in your mind.
Such emotion only serves to make communication and learning (in either direction) impossible. Stay frosty, brother or sister! If you don’t master your emotions, you will continue to be their slave :(
ANOTHER WALL OF WRONG, FROM THE TROLL DESPERATE 4 Attention not wasting my time dealing with your crazy
That’s too bad, i guess you can’t keep control of your emotions well enough to even consider having a conversation about how you might be incorrect or defend your views. I hope you cool off, regain composure/capacity, and try again one day!
I’m no troll, and i don’t seek attention. I seek truth and rational discourse. Your emotion is preventing both rationality and discourse, sadly :( You can’t learn or share your learning with others as long as you flip out like this whenever there is a disagreement/differing view.
" the diffraction limit depends on the size of the object as well as the receptor density in the eye." WRONG - THR APPERENT SIZE OF AN OBJCT MAY DISSAPPEAR TO YOUR EYES BECAUSE OF INBILTY TO FOCUS ON IT , WELL BEFORE THE DIFFRACRTION LIMIT
". If the horizon were the diffraction limit - this would not be possible" THE HORIZON IS THE DIFFACTION LIMIT , IT EXISTS ALL AROUND YOU IN A SPHERE , IT IS NOT THE limit OF ALL SIGHT, IT IS THE LIMIT OF PERCIEVING DEPTH, THERE ARE STILL 2 OTHER DIMENSIONS U CAN PERCIEVE, THOSE BEING LENGTH AND WIDTH
"They do shrink to dots and disappear as they approach the diffraction limit and go beyond it."
APPERENT SIZE ANF DIFFACTION LIMIT ARE NOT THE SAME THING, THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT ENDING WOULD NOT CAUSE AN OBJECT FROM 10 MILES AWAT TO SHINK, IM NOT SAYING THAT, YOU ARE , ONCE AN OBJECT IS ACTUALLY OCCULTED, THE ONLY WAY TO BRING IT BACK IS TO RAISE YOUR VIEWING HEIGHT
That’s true! That’s because of the size of the object and the receptor density, just as i explained! You don’t seem to understand what the diffraction limit / angular resolution limit is or what causes it. I can help if you let me!
If the object is larger, or the receptor density is greater - you can resolve it - regardless of its distance to you (assuming of course, its light can reach you and is bright enough when it does!)
You are positively obsessed with “depth”. Depth is in no way required to see the angular size of objects distant or very close. Why on earth do you think it is?
Imagine a picture. A 2 dimensional picture. No depth, right? Now imagine, in that same picture, you are looking at a car and a bus that are in the far distance one driving in front of the other - perhaps a view from a mountain - which are both much further than the distance to the visible horizon ( a few miles ). Do you really believe that you won’t be able to tell if the bus is larger than the car in the picture? The angular size that is apparent when viewing distant objects does not suddenly stop existing when you lack depth or when things are beyond the distance of the visible horizon. I cannot understand why you think they would, could, or ever do.
Noone said they were! The diffraction limit / angular resolution limit is the point at which you can no longer resolve an object of a given size - because it is too small (apparent size) for the receptor density in your eye. It (diffraction limit/angular resolution limit) is the distance limit where the view of distant objects shrink to a dot (then becoming a fuzzy dot) and then disappear.
You seem to be misunderstanding me. The diffraction limit is the distance at which objects of a particular size (dependent on your receptor density) can no longer be seen AFTER they have shrunk to a dot. The “cause”, if you like, of the apparent shrinking is perspective.
Right, because the light from the “occulted” object is no longer reaching the observer. What is blocking the light? Why can’t the object be zoomed back in upon, like you can with the boats which have disappeared due to being beyond the diffraction limit of the naked eye? If your view were correct, you ought to be able to do that - right?