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:
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!
MY CONDESENSION IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED, IT PLACES YOU FIRMLY IN THER ROLE OF TYHE UNIFORMED, THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU BELIEVE YOUR INFORMED, AND YOURE RESISTING LEARNING, HOLDING ON TO THAT WHICH YOU THINK IS CORRECT WHEN ITS NOT. YOURE BLAMING YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO LEARN ON ME, THATS THE PROBLEM HERE, IT DOESNT LIE WITH MY ATTITUDE, IT LIES WITH YOU AND THE SOONER YOU CAN ACCEPT THAT, THE FASDTRER YOULL BE ABLE TO MOVE ON TO TROLL SOMEONRE ELSE.
THE REASON YOU DONT UNDERSTAND OPAQUE IS BECAUSE IT IS A SCALE ,ITS NOT ON OF THOSE B&W WORDS THAT PREOPLE LIKE TO USE. iTS ONER OF THOSE WORDS I BET YOU DONT USE VERY OFTEN AND SO ARE NOT FAMILAR WITH IT PROPER APPLICATION, USE AND MEANING, AND THE DICTIONARY DOESNT DO IT JUSTICE, ITS TRUE MEANING IS ITSELF OCCULTED.
YOUR UNDERSTAND OF APPERENT IS POOR, SO YES THE GROUND APPEARS TO RISE TO THE HORIZON, BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOUR VIEWING ANGLE TO THE REFLECTED LIGHT CHANGES. hold A CUBE UP TO YOUR EYE, NOTICE EACH ASPECT OF IT , WIDTH LENGTH DEPTH, width AND LENGTH ARE PARRALLEL, BUT DEPTH IS A PERCIEVED ANGLE. dOES THAT MEAN THAT DEPTH IS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION, THAT ITS NOT REALLY THRERE ? nO , IT IS SOLID AND REALLY THERE, LIKE WISE SO IS THE HORIZON , ITS ACTUALLY GROUND, YOU JUST PERCIEVE THE CHANGING ANGLE TO THE REFLRECTED LIGHT TILL IT BECOMES PARRALEL TO YOUR EYER HIEGHT , AT WHICH POINT DEPTH IS NO LONGER PECIEVABLE AND YOUVE REACHED "THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT" YES, THE GROUND IS OBSTRUCTING THE APPERENT ANGLE TO THE SUN, THATS WHY IT "SETS"
"apparent size is caused by..." ANGULAR RESOLUTION , AS THE ANGLE OF THE REFLECTED LIGHT APPROACHES ZERO, THE OBJECT IS UNABLE TO BE RESOVED
"The diffraction limit is the angular resolution limit - they are one and the same." i KEEP TELLING YOU THEY ARE NOT. A THREAD WILL DISPPEAR FROM YOUR EYE AFTER 10 FEET, IS THAT BECAUSE ITS REACHED ITS APPERENT SIZE LIMIT OR REACHED THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT? (ITS THE FIRST) tHE SUN IS ALWAYS BEYONG THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT, BUT ITS STILL RESOLVABLE IN 2D, length AND WIDTH, NEVER DEPTH.
YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE OLD BOAT OVER THE HORIZON THING, THAT WHEN YOU USE A ZOOM LENES , YOU CAN SEE THE BOAT AGAIN, WELL THATS BACUSE IN THE ZOOM CAMERA , YOU REFRACTED THE HORIZON DOWN WHILE AT THE SAME TIME INCREASED THE RESOLVABILITY OF THE BOAT, THEREBY CHANGING THE ANGLE OF INCEDENT LIGHT JUST ENOUGH FOR THE OPTICS TO LET ITS REFRACTED LIGHT REACH YOUR EYE. i SUPPOSE YOU COULD DO THE SAME WITH TH SUN BUT WELL HAVE TO WAIT TILL THEY INVENT A 5000X ZOOM LENSE, MAYBE SOMETHING THATLL HAPPEN WHEN IM REINCARNATED IN 1000 YEARS, I GUESS THATS SOMETHING TO LOOK FOWARD TOO.
iF YOU DOUBT THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT IS ALSO YOUR LIMIT TO PERCIEVING DEPTH MAYBE YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSEF WHAT IS DEPTH BUT A PERCIEVED ANGLE , AN ANGLE IS BETWEEN 2 STR LINRS - THOSE LINES BEING 1. YUOR EYE HIEGHT + 2 DISTANCE TO THE OBLECT - AS THAT ANGLE APPROACHES ZERO, ITS DEPTH IS UNABL TO BE PERCIEVED , THINK OF LIGHT AS HAVING 3 DIMENSION , CEPT THAT 3RD ONE OF DEPTH SORTA HAS AN EXPIRY DATE, IT DONT WORK TO GOOD AS THE INCIDENT ANGLE APPROACHES ZERO, ITS SORT OF OVER WRITTEN BY THE OTHER 2 DIMENSIONS OF LIGHT.
aND NO I DONT THINK A THESUARAUS IS BETTER THAN A DICTIONARY, THEY BOTH HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED IN UNDERSTANDING THE ENTIRE MEANING OF A WORD, YOURE JUST GUILTY OF THINKING ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER, AND NOTHING IS A PILLAR OF CORRECTNESS, AT LEAST NOT IN THIS WORLD. think OF THAT WORD AS A SCALE OF OPAQUNESS, AND UNDERSTAND A CERTAIN DEFINITION MIGHT APPLY DEPENDED ON WHICH END YOU ARE LOOKING AT.
aLSO AS CONVERSATION IS BETWEEN 2 WILLING PEOPLE, THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS IS, THIS IS YOU JUST TROLLING AND ARGUING AND TO BE HONEST, ITS KINDA RAPEY AND STALKING, PLZ STOP.
Condescension is never needed. It is a flimsy shield to protect your pride :( As long as i am “the idiot” and you are the “intellectual superior”, you never have to admit your mistakes, earnestly engage in conversation with me, or learn anything.
It’s an excuse to avoid discussion, and you would do well to drop it if you can. If you are my intellectual better, then you don’t need to resort to petty rhetorical trickery. You can just convey your perspective and answer my questions. No need for ad hominem, emotion, and attitude - those are only needed when your position and thoughts are weak. Strong ideas stand on their own merits and don’t require (or benefit from) belligerence and condescension.
Lol. If you have something of value to learn, i will surely learn it! First i need to understand what it is you are teaching (which has been hard enough with all your emotional bitching), then i need to validate/confirm that it is correct. Does that sound so unreasonable to you?
You aren’t following. Opaque is a word, it has a definition - look it up.
Yes, it is true that nothing is fully opaque. no, that isn’t relevant. For god’s sake pick up a dictionary, or if not - simply accept that you are using the word with your own definition (that differs from everyone else's) and make that clear.
There is good reason to do that sometimes, though in this case i don’t see it. We have three words that do the jobs just fine - opaque (blocking), translucent (partially blocking), and transparent (minimally/no blocking).
Yes. The cube doesn’t taper towards the back of it the way it appears, it only appears that way because of perspective. You even said exactly this previously in this conversation (or perhaps it was in your video).
Of course depth exists, but it is no different than width or length. They are arbitrary (by convention) linear dimensions. Depth appears different due to perspective, but that is an illusion - obviously.
But how can the ground obstruct when it isn’t in the way? Also, can you demonstrate this believed phenomenon on a smaller scale? If not, why not? Please do not ignore this question yet again. It is the crux of the conversation.
Exactly. That IS the diffraction limit, they are one and the same.
The reason things shrink is due to perspective, and the reason they cannot be resolved after a certain amount of distance is because their angular resolution is too small to be seen.
Only because your definition of diffraction limit is wrong. To everyone else, they are one and the same. To you, diffraction limit has something to do with depth - but that isn’t the case for everyone else.
Both! They are one and the same.
Yes, you have said this many times - but you think depth exists in 2D so that kind of unmakes your position :(
I don't think you know how nonsensical what you are saying is. I would like to help, or at least help you to effectively communicate your views to others in the future.
This is almost correct! The only, minor, criticism i have is that the light from the small boat was always reaching your eye - the lens just increased the angular resolution so you could see it again.
You would suppose incorrectly. We already have adequate magnification - the bottom of the “set” ship cannot be brought back. Not with 1000 not with 5000 not with a million. The light from it is NOT reaching the observer anymore. Wasn’t this your whole argument? The ground is occulting (blocking/preventing) the light from the sun (or bottom of the ship) from reaching the observer - so no amount of optics could ever restore it...
I know that it has nothing to do with depth, but i understand that your (unique to you) definition of it defines it that way.
Experiential depth is from parallax - comparing the view from the right to the left eye. We’ve been over this!
So you can’t perceive the depth of an object that is directly at your eye height? (Because the line of your eye height is directly in line with the distance to the object). Please correct this understanding if i have misinterpreted you. I am imagining a perfectly straight line coming out of your eyes, and a direct line (hypotenuse) from the object to your eye - so if the line from your eye is the same as the one to the object (as it is whenever the object is directly in line with your eye) then you cant see the depth of a basketball if you hold it in front of your face? You couldn’t possibly mean this, so please let me know where/how i have misunderstood you.
Ok, if you wish - for the purposes of effective communication in this discussion i am happy to. As long as you are aware it isn’t what the word means and isn’t the way it is used by anyone else. When we want to talk about an object that blocks light, we call it opaque. When we want to talk about an object that is slightly opaque, we call it translucent.
I know this is uncomfortable for you. I am challenging your views, and i am asking questions that are hard for you. You do NOT have to continue it, but i am quite sure that if you do - it will benefit us both.