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’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.
“Condescension is never needed” - WRONG, ITS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE CORRECT ORDER, SO YOU ALWAYS KNOW YOUR PLACE
“ It is a flimsy shield to protect your pride” YA, BY YOU REVERTING TO YOUR IM A VICTIM FEELINGS TO PROTECT YOUR PRIDE IN BEING A LOW IQ STALKER + TROLLER
“ you don’t need to resort to petty rhetorical trickery” IM NOT, IM JUST TELLING YOU THE TRUTH, YOUR USING DOUBLE SPEAK AND WRONG THINKI N ORDER TO PROLONG YOUR INFATUATION WITH YOUR DELUSIONS OF REALITY
“No need for ad hominem, emotion, and attitude - those are only needed when your position and thoughts are weak.” THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP HARPING ON YOUR EMOTIONAL DAMAGE AND FEELINGS OF ATTITUDE, IS IT TO DISGUISE THE WEAKNESS OF YOUR LOGIC, MAYBE THAT WORKS ON IDIOTS BUT I DONT STACK SHIT THAT HIGH AND THEN TRY TO CRY ON ITS SHOULDER, YOU DO.
“First i need to understand what it is you are teaching” IM NOT TEACHING ANYTHING, IM JUST CORRECTING YOUR WRONG. ALSO TEACHERS GET PAID, ARE YOU PAYING ME TO CORRECT YOUR NUMPTY CRACKER JACK WINDOW LICKING?
“ Opaque is a word, it has a definition” OH, ITS A WORD, WOW, THANKS FOR YOUR BRILLIANT OBSERVATION EINSTEIN, THIS WORD ALSO HAS SYNONYMS WHICH HINT AS ITS OBSURRED COMPLTE MEANING, BUT BE MY GUEST KEEP THINKING IN B&W LIKE A CRAYON MUNCHER
“ simply accept that you are using the word with your own definition” WRONG, IM USING A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING BASED ON DICTIONARY , THESAURAS AND GENERAL USAGE, YOU ARE FOLLOWING WHAT A FALSE AUTHORITY TOLD YOU TO DO, CAUSE SCARED LITTLE COWARD
“Depth appears different due to perspective, but that is an illusion – obviously.” WRONG, YOUR CONFLATED SOMETHING LIKE A MIRAGE WITCH IS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION WITH SOMETHING LIKE THE APPERNT HORIZON WHICH IS JUST PHYSICAL GROUND THAT APPEARS AS A LINE, BUT THE GROUND IS REALLY THERE, REALLY I SWEAR
“But how can the ground obstruct when it isn’t in the way? “ THE GROUND AT THE HORIZON IS REALLY THERE , ITS NOT A OPTICAL ILLUSION, IT IS QUITE PRYSICAL, YOU MUST BE CONFUSED , THE HOROZON ITSELF IS AN ILLUSION – ITS NOT REALLY THRERE , BUT IT SITS ON GROUND THAT IS REALLY THERE, GET IT. IF YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE OF THIS – THERES THE SUN SET, OR IVE SEENS TONS OF VIDEO OF ITEMS DISPPEARING BOTTTOM FIRST OVER 50 FEET ON A TOTALLY FLAT FLOOR
“angular resolution IS the diffraction limit, they are one and the same” WRONG, I CAN GET A HAIR TO DISSAPER 20 FEET AWAY BECAUSE OF ANGULAR RESOLUTION , IS THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT 20 FEET AWAY, I DONT THINK SO. THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT IS WHERE YOUR ABILTY TO PERCIEVE DEPTH DISAPPEARS, BASED ON YOUR EYE HEIGHT, GETTING A HAIR TO DISAPPEAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR EYE HEIGHT
“The reason things shrink is due to perspective” IF THEY'RE WITHIN THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT, THEN YES, IF THEY'RE BEYOND IT, THEN NO. TRY TO FIND AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WHICH YOU CLAIM , YOU WONT CAUSE YOU'RE JUST PULLING STUFF OUT OF YOUR BUTT, CAUSE IGNORANT AS F
“your definition of diffraction limit is wrong.” WRONG, YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF IT IS INCOMPLETE , CAUSE YOURE AN IDIOT, U JUST SAID YOU THINK ITS 10 FEET AWAY, ARE YOU RETARDED, SERIOUSLY? I NEED TO KNOW CAUSE IF YOU ARE I SHOULDNT TIE YOU TO MY WHIPPNG POST.
“but you think depth exists in 2D” GOOD , YOU NOW REALIZE THE SUN IS ALWAYS BEYOND THE DIFFACTION LIMIT AND IS NEVER PERCIEVED IN 3D PERSPECTIVE WHERE ANGULAR SIZES CHANGES DRASTICALLY. IS THE SUN ACTYUALLY 3D? I WOULD SPECULATE IT PROBABLY IS BUT IDK, iVE NEVER BEEN THERE, PERHAPS WHEN IM DEAD MY SOULS WILL BE CHUCKED INTO IT AND THEN ILL COME BACK AND TELL YOU AFTER HAUNTING YOUR DUMD ASS AND SCARING THE SHIT OUT OF YOU, DEAL?
“ We already have adequate magnification” YEAH FOR A SHIP 10 MILES AWAY, SURE, BUT THE SUN IS MUCH MUCH FURTHER AWAY, SO TO BRING IT BACK WE STILL NEED TO DO IT THE OLD FASHIONED WAY OF CHANGING OUR HEIGHT
“I know that it has nothing to do with depth” OH REALLY , WELL IF DEPTH IS AN ANGLE, WHERE DOES THIS ANGLE END, LIKE NVER IN YOUR EMPTY BRAIN? IT JUST GOES ON FOREVER? HMM I THOUGHT THINGS CONVERGE AT THE HORIZON, SO WOULDNT THAT MEAN THAT THAT ANGLE CONVERGES TO 0 TOO? AND SINCE WE CAN SEE THE SUN , ISNT THE THING THAT CONVERGES JUST DEPTH?
“Experiential depth is from parallax” STOP MAKING UP WORDS THAT MEAN SHIT, PARRALAX IS COMPARING ONE VIWW TO ANOTHER , AND DEPTH IS NOT DUE TO YOU HAVING TWO EYES, WE WENT OVER THIS, BUT YOU HAVE THE MEMORY OF A GOAT.
“So you can’t perceive the depth of an object that is directly at your eye height? THE DIFFACTION LIMIT IS DUE TO EYE HEIGHT AND DISTANCE AWAY, NOT JUST EYE HEIGHT, OBVIUOSLY YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF DIFFACTION LIMIT IS POOR , LIKE MOST OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING, U THINK ITS JUST APPARENT SIZE
“ it isn’t what the word means and isn’t the way it is used by anyone else.” wHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THE DEFINITIONS IN THE DICTIONARY ARE PERFECT ALL THE TIME, PERHAPS YOURR CONFUSING THE DICTIONARY WITH THE bIBLE, A COMMON MISTAKE FOR CHATTLE. AT BEST I WOULD SAY THE DIC DEF IS INCOMPLETE AND LACKING ROBUSTNESS
“I know this is uncomfortable for you. I am challenging your views,” WHY DO YOU ASSUME IM UNCORMFORTABLE? IS IT BECAUSE IM USING CAPS TO DISTINGUISH MY BIG BRAINS THOUGHTS FROM YOUR LITTLE ONES? IT IT BECAUSE I CHALLANGE YOUR NUMBTY LOGIC AND EXPOSE IT AS WRONG THINK THAT YOU NEED TO PROJECT YOUR WEAKNESS ONTO ME? DOES THAWT WORK FOR YOU? WHATEVER FLOATS YOUR BOAT, ENJOY THE DENILE.
“ You do NOT have to continue it” IVE ASKED YOU 6 TIMES TO STOP BUGGING ME WITH YOUR MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF REALITY, BUT YUOR REFUSAL TO LISTEN IS INEXORABLY LINKED WITH YOUR INABILITY TO LEARN. A PROBLEM AND CHALLENGE FOR YOU THAT I WOULDNT WISH ON MY WORST ENEMY. YOU DO HAVE MY DEEPEST SYMPATHY
Authoritarian morons always think stupid, proud, and egotistical things like this. They use force because they can’t use intellect. If you have intellect, then you (typically) don’t need to resort to baser methods. If you have it, use it! If you don’t then i understand why you are acting the embarrassing way you are - and you should too and work harder at it!
You are the only one who has volatile feelings in this, which is why you are acting so emotional and unable to have a simple and mundane conversation with me. I’m not the victim of your actions/emotions, you are! As i said, if you don’t get control over them you will continue to be their slave.
If only you had the truth to give (and i always give the benefit of the doubt, and hope that you do have such truth to share!), then you wouldn’t need to yell/insult/condescend! You could just plainly share your truth and answer my questions about it, with no unpleasant emotion (which is causing YOU distress!).
Doublespeak is when you say one thing and mean another, or say both contradictory/paradoxical things out both sides of your mouth. Please provide one example of me doing that so i can explain myself (likely a misinterpretation on your part, but possibly an unintentional mistake on mine!)
As for wrong think, that’s when you tell someone their views are unacceptable and they aren’t allowed to have them. It is NOT when you tell someone their views are incorrect, like when you point out that the definition of the words and terms they are using are not in any available dictionary or encyclopedia. There is no reason to take such offense! You are swinging wildly with these baseless criticisms because your feelings have been hurt - but it was not (and is not) my intention to hurt them or you in any way.
If you think that isn’t the case, and there is any merit to the criticisms above, please provide specific examples so we can discuss them.
It is a disguise for the weakness of logic - that’s exactly what i said! I have never harped on MY emotional damage, but the damage you are allowing your emotion to cause yourself (and this otherwise easy and mundane conversation) :( You are so afraid and threatened at being wrong that you have been freaking out almost from the beginning. Cast off your needless fear along with your foolish pride which causes it. You make mistakes all the time! You are wrong about lots of the things you think and say! Take heart! So does/is everybody else!
You are trying (failing currently) to teach your explanation for the cause of the sunset, your unique definition for diffraction limit, your unique (and opposite) definition for opaque, that 2D has depth, one eye can perceive depth, the list goes on and on. Yes, correcting peoples misunderstandings of what you teach is part of teaching!
If we have the truth, brother or sister - it is our duty to share it. Why bother sharing a video like this in the first place? Did you really expect to be paid for it? Sharing the truth is its own reward, don’t you agree?
Even if this were true and supported your usage, the definition of the word is common among people and exists. When you use the word incorrectly, in this case with your belief that it means the opposite of what the definition does, that causes confusion when trying to communicate! You shouldn’t get mad about it; opaque means light blocking - not translucent (they are different words for a reason!). When you redefine common words you should try to make sure you are both upfront about that and that there is a good reason for doing so. You did neither - you just immediately used the word incorrectly.
Surely you mean to say, right. Go back to your cube example. You hold it up and slightly tilt it forward so you can see the top of it clearly. you know that it is a cube, and has exactly equal height, width, and depth. Yet when you observe the top in the dimension of depth - you can see that it tapers like a trapezoid towards the back! The top of the cube is a perfect square, but in the dimension of depth it APPEARS to be a trapezoid. This is an illusion. Do you understand what i am saying now?
No one said the ground was an optical illusion - that would be stupid. I said that the apparent rising of it was an illusion. It may LOOK like it has risen in the distance, but it hasn’t (assuming it is flat, that is).
It is never in between the sun and the observer (when it is flat). So if it is never between it, then regardless of how opaque or “non-opaque” it is, it can never block any light coming from it. Right? Can you explain/describe how the ground blocks light when it isn’t ever between the light and the observer?
Me too! But when i try to replicate them, i can’t. Have you tried to replicate any of them? Videos can be misleading, and i prefer to validate things myself - not trust the tv [screens] - don’t you agree?
Also in those videos the item is usually right against the surface of the flat plane, not above it and allowing perspective to make the two appear to converge AND when you zoom in the “occulted” portion is fully restored - so it isn’t really analogous to what you think is happening with the sunset. The sun is always FAR above the ground, even when it appears (due to perspective) to be close to it.
No, it isn’t good to think things that are clearly wrong. Depth does not exist in 2D - by definition/convention. It doesn’t matter how far that 2D plane is from you - there is NO depth in it nor is depth possible in 2D.
That’s exactly my point. no amount of magnification can restore the “occulted” part of the boat once it has partially “set over the horizon”. Of course the bottom of the sun, although certainly much further away, can ALSO not be restored for the same reasons. The light from the bottom of it is simply not reaching the observer anymore. no amount of magnification/optics could ever change/fix that.
It isn’t an angle, but i understand what you mean when you say that. Depth is a linear dimension, along with height and width. Perceived/experiential depth is caused by parallax from the difference between what the left and right eyes see. Your “depth angle” conception requires two eyes to be sensical.
Yes, there is a distance at which objects do not exhibit noticeable parallax and so we do not experience noticeable depth as a result (although, as i said - the brain has other tricks to infer depth when that detail is missing - light/shadow etc.). This distance is NOT the diffraction limit, and beyond it objects still shrink in apparent size as they recede for all the same reasons they do when they are closer. You may be correct about other things you are saying, but these things are plainly and demonstrably wrong.
Yes, exactly! I recognize that the word parallax is not usually a word applied to visual/experiential depth, but it is completely appropriate when you understand what parallax is. Your brain compares the one view from the left eye, to the one view from the right eye - and that is how it generates experiential depth! Haven’t you ever wondered how 3D glasses work?
Depth IS due to having two eyes, and we DID go over this. But effective communication (and education, beyond that) requires repetition! Don’t you remember? :)
Perhaps, but i know what it is and didn’t simply make up a new definition for it (or worse, pick it up from someone else who also didn’t know what it meant). Why can’t/won’t you just look it up?
Nowhere! And i am perfectly fine with redefining words when there is a good reason to, or even just arbitrarily for the purposes of a conversation / effective communication. Your pride is the only thing preventing you from admitting (and even recognizing!) that the common definition (that everyone else knows and uses) for opaque is the opposite of the one you use. Why not just admit it, and move on?
I don’t assume! You are demonstrating it through your embarrassing behavior :( You are also literally saying it when you say this conversation is “rape”. Unless you are most comfortable when being raped?
And yet your foolish pride doesn’t allow you to simply stop responding yourself - which would have ended this “conversation” immediately! I’m using your weakness against you, for your own benefit, and i do it out of love for the subject and for you brother or sister!
I assure you, though this discussion is very difficult for you - it will benefit us both if you continue it. It will not be so uncomfortable if you can just calm down and discuss logically/rationally. We are talking about objective reality, and there is no reason to be emotional - even when you are wrong! Pride is a fool’s fortress and shame’s cloak - cast it off if you can and you will be better for it!