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:
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).
"It comes from having two vantage points a known distance apart from one another and comparing the different images." wrong - you can perceive depth from one vantage point, comparing two will show you its parallax. your confusing a common term and misapplying it with what im talking about. So hold a cube up to your eye, identify all 3 aspects of its width height and depth. Now take a photo of it, Did the cube's aspect of depth disappear? NO, even though its only technically a 2d image, you still perceive the aspects of the cubes depth. g Depth to the stars can be "calculated , but only if you make certain assumption, which are not true. The closeness of your ey.es doesnt prevent you from seeing the aspect "called depth" because the object in question is beyond the diffraction limit, so depth never reaches your eyes.
Yes, with two eyes. Those are the two vantage points which allows for the brain to process the parallax into experiential depth.
With one eye, that can’t happen. It’s just like watching a tv. Without the 3d glasses, you will not experience depth. You can still infer depth (from artistic perspective, light and shadow, etc. but the image you are viewing is 2D and 2D has no depth. Please let me know if you still disagree that 2D has no depth.
There is no depth in a 2D image, and images of things beyond the diffraction limit can’t be seen as anything but a blur... You fundamentally don’t seem to understand what the diffraction limit is, or why.
Depth is not required to see an objects angular size.
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?!
my video does not say perspective causes sunsets, it say occultation does. Your "interpretation" is not based on anything i say, it based on your sad misunderstanding of just about everything. Talking to you is stressful, u never learn. Im not the black hole here. If i was the one "learning" i wouldn't debate the host with repeated parrotings, like you are.
Your video is a minor variation, and even says explicitly in the beginning of it that the perspective limit that the horizon is referred to as by other flat earthers is not incorrect - just incomplete.
I know this is difficult for you. I am not trying to make it hard, and i’m not parroting. I am certainly not debating, because that is a stupid game for morons. I am just trying to understand your perspective and validate it. If you were correct, and i was incorrect - i would want to know it! Hopefully you feel the same way in the reverse case too!
"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 :(
naw , some of us dont need parroting, but im sure you always will. Im just trying to tell you facts you demonstrated here, why cant you just accept the truth and move on, do you have a problem with reality?
You misunderstand. Repetition is not merely parroting (though it certainly can be)
Repeating exactly what you said again, either you or me, is usually not helpful/elucidating.
Repeating what i understood from what you said IS, and is required to be certain that my understanding of what you said is what you meant to say. Language is imprecise, and we are not perfect.
I’m more interested in demonstrating/validating the facts you are claiming are correct. Anyone can (and often does) claim facts - but that isn’t good enough in and of itself to determine if the claimed fact is correct. First i have to understand the facts you are claiming, then i need to validate them.
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.
im super cool, YOU HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THAT YOURE WRONG AND PROJECTING ONTO ME. A TACTIC FROM DISINFO TROLLS LIKE YOURSELF
Super cool people don’t have caps lock attacks, and don’t mindlessly/reflexively attack the person they are speaking to because they don’t like what they have to say. Ad hominem is the last resort of the intellectually feeble. They attack the thinker out of desperation because they lack the competency to attack the thought.
Stay cool, attack the thought!
Of course! That’s why i am (trying to anyway) discussing with you! If i am wrong, i should like to know it and to know how i can validate it for myself! How about you?
You are the (only!) one who is childishly insulting... Speaking of “disinfo tactics” and the actions of trolls.
Try to stay on topic. Address content, not the speaker!
" 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?
What is blocking the light? The rising optical non opaque ground that ends at your eye height, thats why the background becomes occulted
"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? - this is what you doo all the time, irs your signature - you misunderstand something i said and then blame me for making you your brain fart. Depth is a part of everything you see before the horizon, thats just fact, reality, its not my obsession and you. Your example it just ridiculous cause i dont think you could ever see a car past the horizon , and even if you could, the item is still very close as compared to the distance to the stars so for yousa to expect they would act the same way is just more proof at how hard headed you are.
"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 just contradicted yourself by saying of course they are different things and then stating how they are the same, good grief, see the problem is youre such a logical hypocrite, sorta like an illogical lefty, and then youre like "why cant you handle my faults?" Oh yes its must be my problem.....sure Dude, your hopeless.
Objects can become too apparently small to see well before the diffraction limit, and just because an object has reached the diffraction limit, doesnt mean it will shrink to a dot.
The rising of that
nonopaque ground is an optical illusion, how can an optical illusion physically block light? Can you demonstrate this on a smaller scale? If not, why not?I should have been more careful with my phrasing. I meant beyond the distance to the visible horizon at sea level (which is a few miles give or take - and you claim is the diffraction limit/distance) You can easily see beyond a few miles from a higher vantage point, like a mountain - which is why i specified that in the example.
If you believe that the diffraction limit changes when you are up higher - what causes that in your view? Diffraction limit does not change with altitude, and is a physical limitation of the eye/receiver itself.
This is why we need repetition in communication! You just misunderstood me, but your misunderstanding only became clear when you repeated your interpretation of what i told you! Now i can clarify your misunderstanding. This is the way it is supposed to work!
The horizon isn’t exactly the diffraction limit. The diffraction limit IS the distance at which objects (the distance depends on the size of the object) shrink to dots, then become fuzzy dots, and then disappear. The example you gave of the small boats that completely disappear but can be zoomed in upon and fully restored is the perfect example. They are beyond the diffraction limit for the eye, which is why they are no longer visible - even though they are still there and the light from them is still reaching your eye. They can only be brought back into view by the eye with magnification, and they are not yet at the distance of the horizon. This shows plainly that the horizon and the diffraction limit are separate. Please let me know if you still don’t understand or disagree!
Your definition of diffraction limit is unique to you. It has a meaning to everyone else, and has nothing to do with depth perception. I think i understand your particular meaning, but you haven’t been able to convey/explain what depth has to do with seeing objects. The boats that have shrunk too small to see anymore but are not beyond the horizon yet don’t have any depth. But you say they are not yet at the diffraction limit? So things that are within/before the diffraction limit can also lack depth? Then what really determines when depth suddenly stops being perceivable, if it isn’t the distance to the diffraction limit?