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:
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.
I’m glad you didn’t! This conversation will benefit both of us as long as you can keep control over your emotions. Your feigned condescension is a flimsy shield, and if you are correct - you wouldn’t need it at all anyway!
I understand that you are using it that way, but - no - opaque means light blocking (look it up!). Translucent means translucent. That’s why they are separate words and are NOT synonyms! I’m concerned you picked this up from wherever you got your flawed conception of diffraction limit from...
Consider it “poetic license”. What i meant was, and you seem to understand and agree with my meaning, that the surface only appears to rise in the distance - it doesn’t actually rise (it’s an illusion created by the way we see / laws of perspective). Because the ground doesn’t actually rise - it can’t actually block/“occult” anything. Again, since you believe it can actually block things - even though it is NOT in the way of them and only appears that way if you misunderstand perspective - can you demonstrate this perfectly flat surface blocking/“occulting” things in the distance on a smaller scale? If not, why not?
Things that it is in front of / obstructing - yes! But the ground isn’t obstructing the sun in the distance. There is no ground in between the sun and your eye. The apparent perspective that the ground is rising up in the distance is an illusion (it isn’t ACTUALLY happening, it just looks that way because of the laws of optics). So, since it seems like we agree, if the ground is NOT in between your eye and the light from the sun - how could it ever block the light from it? This is the crux, so please don’t ignore this question even though it will be very difficult for you.
As i’ve explained several times now (effective communication takes repetition!), apparent size is caused by perspective.
Believe me, the feeling is mutual :) Try to stay cool and keep control of your emotions - they are making this mundane conversation a LOT harder than it has to be.
My understanding of the diffraction limit is the same/similar to everyone else that learns about it - while yours is wildly different. I don’t have a problem with that, personally, but you should be aware of it when you are discussing with other people! Otherwise using a term with an existing definition like “diffraction limit” and meaning “the point beyond which depth of an object is no longer perceivable” will only cause confusion!
The diffraction limit is the angular resolution limit - they are one and the same. Please let me know if you disagree, or don’t understand what I’m saying.
No, it isn’t. It isn’t dependent on your altitude in any way. Your personal definition of it may be - but not the actual/common definition. The distance to the apparent horizon does change with altitude (eye height) and it seems this is what you mean.
But that’s my whole point, and the reason for discussing the small boat disappearing BEFORE reaching the horizon (which you call the diffraction limit)! You didn’t change the distance at all! The distance to the visible horizon remains the same, and once that small boat goes “over it” no amount of zooming will ever restore it. By your own admission, the diffraction limit is the horizon AND the distance to it does not change regardless of the magnification you use. Please let me know if you disagree!
What the magnification lense does is increase the angular size of the distant small boat so that it is above your eye’s diffraction limit / angular resolution limit so that you can resolve [see] it again
It does not, and cannot, change the distance to the horizon nor see things that have “set” “over” it. Right? So in your view, the diffraction limit remains the same (i.e. the horizon stays the same distance from you) no matter what magnification you use).
True, which shows that the horizon is not the diffraction limit. The horizon could be A diffraction limit, but the diffraction limit exists absolutely every direction you look.
You should be aware that this is only in your definition. Diffraction limit has a meaning, and it does not include anything about “perceiving depth”. I am fine with using alternate definitions, but you need to be aware that when you use this term trying to communicate your ideas with others - that your definition is wildly different than most everyone else’s.
If you don’t believe me, please look it up!
Now you’re asking the right questions! Yes, the sun is within the diffraction limit (everything you can resolve as an object with your eye is)! The diffraction limit isn’t a flat/fixed distance, it is a distance that depends on the size of the object and the receptor density in your eye! Of course, this is for actual diffraction limit, not the term you are using which doesn’t exist in any dictionary, encyclopedia, or textbook.
Ok. However, you should know that i don’t call flat earth a psyop. i call it an extremely valuable subject. I call the flat earth psyop a psyop which has the purpose of suppressing, preventing, and discrediting the valuable subject and its earnest researchers.
I know it feels that way, but that is just an emotion you are allowing to get in the way of communication. I am having (attempting to have, in any case) this conversation to benefit us both! If you are wrong, i would like you to know it and to understand why. If i am wrong, i would like to know it and understand why.
This is a somewhat fair point. I commented first, so therefore i started the conversation - fair enough. I should have said, and meant, that this conversation is entirely voluntary and you have no obligation to continue it. I only do continue it because i value the subject and want to explore it further as well as exchange views on it with other people with the same interest in it. Hopefully you are of a similar perspective!
You don’t seem to understand a lot of the definitions of those synonyms either, or you would see the pattern. Dark (is translucent dark?). Inscrutable/cryptic (is transparent / see-through inscrutable/cryptic?). You bothered to look up the word opaque in a thesaurus but couldn’t bother to just look the word up in a dictionary first? You are letting your pride hurt you - let it go! We all fuck up all the time. So you used the word opaque incorrectly - who gives a shit? Recognize your mistake, apologize if you feel like it, and most importantly try to do better in the future! If you refuse to recognize and admit your mistakes, you are doomed to make them again :(
Yes, that’s always true and the feeling is very much mutual. Don’t give up on learning, and don’t run away just because the conversation is difficult for you and not going the way you hoped. Stay frosty. Learning and sharing knowledge is difficult, takes a LOT of effort and repetition, but it is well worth it - for yourself and others!