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:
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?
"The rising of that non opaque 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?" The ground is non opaque , opaque being translucent or see though, it optically rising, is not an optical illusion, it is apparent, thats the way you perceive depth , at an angle of the incident light. Can i demonstrate that things are occulted by the horizon - holy - how retarded are you to even ask?
no , i dont need things repeated, you do, cause "idiot"
"he 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." wrong - that apparent size - as ive already said - apparent size and the diffraction limit are not the same thing, stop conflarting the 2. When you zoom ion on the boat - YOUR NOT USING YOUR EYE , YOUR USING ANOTHER LENSE WITH DIFFRENT OPTICS - DAHHHHH
NO MY UNDERWTANDING OF DIFFRACTION LIMIT IS NOT UNIQU TO ME , YOU JUST DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH APPERENT SIZE - IT DOESNT.
dUUDE fLAT eARTH IS NOT THE pSYOP. ITS DUMB PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT THINK THEY KNOW SHIT WHEN THE DONT KNOW FUCK THAT IS THE PSYOP, SO YOU ARE THE PSYOP.
PLEASE GET IT THOUGH YOUR THICK SKULL , DONT EVER MSG ME, YOUR TOO DUMB TO LEARN ANYYTHING, YOU ARE A TROLL AND A STALKER, YOU ARE SICK IN THR HEAD, YOU ARE THE MOST IDIOTIC PERSON IVE EVER TALKD TOO AND IVE TALKED TO MILLIONS. CAN I JUST BLOCK YOU, I THINK IMA TRY THAT CAUSE I THINK YOUR TOO STUPID TO STOP REPEATING THINGS LIKE A BROKEN RECORD. fOR THE LOVE OF GOD , GO AWAY.
Opaque is the opposite of translucent or see through. If the ground were translucent or see through, then we would expect to see through the ground and it wouldn’t fully “occult” things anymore. Right?
You are so busy yelling, insulting, and becoming emotional that you don’t even notice the MANY silly mistakes you make.
So the ground is REALLY rising in the distance? And railroad tracks are REALLY growing closer and closer together in the distance as they appear to us? Are you sure it doesn’t just LOOK like these things are happening because of the laws of perspective (i.e. they are optical illusions)? You don’t actually think you have to go uphill on a flat plane to reach the horizon do you?
The optical rising is precisely that - optical. It isn’t actually rising and as such it can’t actually block anything.
I’m not, you are just misunderstanding me. The diffraction limit is the distance where you stop being able to resolve an object. Technically it is right at (or right beyond) the distance where the object you attempt to resolve has shrunk to (or beyond) a point. The reason for apparent size has nothing to do with the diffraction limit, it is due to perspective. Please let me know if you still don’t understand or need more clarification!
How would you zoom in with your eye? Why are you answering a (stupid) question no one asked? The question was - if a boat disappears from view and no longer has visible depth long before reaching the horizon (what you call the “diffraction limit”) then what is the diffraction limit at all? It can’t be the point at which you can’t perceive the depth of distant objects anymore, because that would necessarily include the tiny boat which you can’t see the depth of and ISN’T at the diffraction limit yet (according to you)?
It is not the correct/common understanding. you have made up a new term with new attributes. Or someone else did, and you adopted it.
Diffraction limit means something. It has a definition which you can look up whenever you feel like it. It has nothing at all to do with the perception of depth. Go ahead, look it up.
I agree. “Flat earth” is not the psyop. The flat earth psyop is the psyop. The shape of the world, or studying independently to determine what it is - is in no way a psyop. The massively advertised and funded advertising campaign of “flat earth” - often including ostensibly stupid, and trivially refutable claims like that perspective is the cause of sunsets IS. It is a controlled opposition and part of the larger anti-flat earth psyop designed to prevent, suppress, and discredit this valuable subject and its earnest researchers.
Lol. You have been struggling to answer my simple questions and scream and insult when i don’t automatically agree with you :( It would be easy for me to conclude that you are too stupid to understand my questions or criticisms of your views, but i know that communication takes time and you are suffering from pride :( I would like to help, but you sure aren’t making it easy!
Pride is a fool’s fortress and shame’s cloak. Cast it off if you can. It’s hurting you, and preventing you from being able to share your views as well as refine them. It’s also preventing you from properly understanding me, because you assume i must be stupid to protect your damaged and flimsy pride :(
You began this conversation, and i know it didn’t go the way you hoped it would where everyone in your echo chamber automatically agrees with you and parrots what you say. However you have no obligation to continue it or to learn anything - ever! You can keep thinking that opaque means translucent/transparent, you can keep thinking that perception of depth has some bearing on angular size (it doesn’t), and you can keep thinking that the diffraction limit has something to do with depth perception (it doesn’t).
I don’t like that you will continue to be demonstrably wrong and try and share those mistakes with others completely unwittingly and with undeserved condescension - but i can’t stop you and i can’t force you to do any better (nor would i if I could)!
I just want to help you to share your ideas effectively, and to expose them to rational criticism and validation so that they can become better refined. Screaming and running away from that is what the religious do to protect their flimsy beliefs. Don’t be a zealot if you can help it, and stay frosty!
OF BROTHER, I THOUGHT I BLOCKED YOUR RETARDED ASS, OPAQUE MEANS TRANLUCENT , THE GROUND IS NON OPAQUE, JUST CAUSE IM USING CAPS DOESNT MEAN IM YLLING, IM JUST DOING IT TO ANNOY YOU. AND ITS WORKING.
THE GROUND APPEARS TO BE OPTICALLY RISING, THAT DOESNT MEAN THE GROUND IS REALLY RISING OR IT'S AN OPTICAL ILLUSION, IT MEANS YOU DONT UNDERSTASND WHAT APPERENT IS, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING , ITS YOUR DUMB ASS THAT IS MISCONSTRUEING APPERNT AND ILLUSION
OF COURSE THE GROUND CAN BLOCK THINGS - CAN YOU SEE THE GROUND BELOW IT, WELL WHATS BLOCKING IT - OH THE OTHER GROUND, DUDE YOU ARE SO FING THICK./
"The diffraction limit is the distance where you stop being able to resolve an object." WRONG - YOUR DESCRIBING THE APPERNT SIZE LIMIT OF AN OBJECT, YOU DONT UNDERSTASND WHAT THE DIFFRACTRION LIMT IS - CAUSE YOUR IQ IS SMALLER THAN YOUR SHOE SIZE
THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT IS BASED ON YOUR EYE HEIGHT, NOT JUST DISTANCE AWAY FROM IT, SO WHEN YOU USE A ZOOM LENSE, YOUV CHANGED YOUR EYE LENSE, SO U CHANGED THE DISTANCE, DUH
THE DIFFACTION LIMIT (AKA THE HORIZON) IT S NOT JUST AT THAT LINE, ITS ALL AROUND YOU IN 360 DECREES, NOT IS IT THE END OF ALL SIGHT, ITS THE LIMIT OF PERCIEVING DEPTH. iF IT WAS THE LIMIT OF ALL SIGHT AS YOU SUGGEST, @ LETS SAY 10 MILES , AND IT EXISTS ALL AROUND YOU (NOT JUST AT THE HORIZON, HOW DO YOU SEE THE SEE THE SUN ABOVE YOU AT NOON , IS THE SUN WITHIN THE DEFRACCTION LIMIT? i DONT THINK SO, (I KNOW YOU WONT FIGURE IT OUT CAUSE THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT IS THE LIMIT OF YOU PERCIEVING DEPTH, NOT THE LIMIT OF SIGHT).
i THINK THE POPLE THAT CALL fLAT eARTH A PSYOP ARE THE PSYOP WHERE THEY GET STUPID UNKNOWING PEOPLE TO JUST REPEAT STUPID THINGS - KINDA LIKE WHAT YOUR DOING....
i HAVENT STRUGGLED ONE BIT, YOUVE STRUGGLED TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL INFO , CAUSE YOUR SO INDORTRINASTED WITH PSYOP INFO. iTS NOT MY PRIDE THAT IS ONE THE LINE HERE - DID I SAY SOEWWHRE IN MY POST THAT I WANTED TO TEACH IDIOTS LIKE YOU TO LEARN HOW TO THINK CORRECTLY, NAW YOUR JUST HERE TO WASTE MY TIME, STOP FOOLING YOURSELF.
"You began this conversation" - WOW SEE THIS IS HOW STUPID YUO ARE - SO YOU THINK I COMMENTED ON MY OWN VIDEO ABOUT HOW WRONG IT IS - ARE YOU REALLY THIS DELUSIONAL - I THINK THIS MUST BE THE CASE. nO YOU BEGAN THIS CONV, CAUSE YOURE A SHILL AND AN IDIOT. sO IF YOU WANT TO QUESTION THE TRUE MEANING OF OPAQUE, THEN WHY ARE SNYOMS FOR THAT WORD ambiguous arcane cryptic dark deep Delphic double-edged elliptical elliptic enigmatic enigmatical equivocal fuliginous inscrutable murky mysterious mystic nebulous obscure occult
sO LETS SAY YOU HAD A BALL OF LIGHT , AND YOU DROPPED IT IN SOME SHALLOW BUT STILL" MURKY" WATER , WOULD YOU NOT STILL SEE SOME OF THAT LIGHT, IS THE WATER NOT MURKY , OR HAS A DEGREE OF TRANSPARANCY. sEE THINGS ARE NEITHER BLACK NOR WHITE, THEY ARE BUT SHADES OF UNDERSTANDING., AND THAT UNDERSTANDING IS ALWAYS GREY. YOUVE MUCH TO LEARN. jUST STOP BOTHERING ME.