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:
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!
gET A LIFE AND STOP BUGGING ME! I KNOW YOUR A LIAR AND PRETENDER, PLEASE F OFF.
Oh no, is that another word you don’t know the definition of? Try looking it up! That’s what we do when we don’t know what words mean.
In all caps with incessant ad hominem, attitude, and emotion. If you could skip all that, get a handle on your emotions, and actually “just tell me facts” this would be a far more productive conversation and much less unpleasant for you.
Not at all! As i said, first i have to figure out what it is you are trying to teach about how reality works (which is made much harder with your constant bitching), and then i have to validate it is correct! We are still on step one, but this would go much faster without all your drama. This is a mundane conversation that doesn’t warrant any offense, and your emotions and your pride are getting the better of you :(
Since there are so many examples “ALL OVER THIS THREAD” why can’t/couldn’t you mention even one specifically?
You skip a lot, but what i write is for your benefit - not mine. Your all caps and vapid insult have no impact on me, they only hurt you :( It is sad that you can’t see that, and i want to help you to be able to communicate effectively with me and others in the future if i can. On the other hand, you can continue to refuse my help and just “skip” the whole conversation!
If you want to teach people, or even just communicate with them effectively - a necessary prerequisite to teaching, you have to have them tell you what you told them in their own words/understanding. This is what “examination” [aka exams] are for in education. Just because you have taught/said something to someone doesn’t mean they automatically understand it properly - you have to check! Yes, a lot of teaching is correcting peoples errors in understanding and repetition is necessary to effectively teach/communicate.
I disagree with this degenerate libertine “philosophy”. We have duty, and a part of it is to share the truth we discover with others. Even if we didn’t have such a duty, we should want to to expose that truth to criticism for refinement, to encounter other’s truth, and to make the world better through the elimination of ignorance [the cause of evil]! You can never have too much truth! I agree that truth is an ideal, and i am more than happy to settle for validated/demonstrable fact in the meantime.
Fair enough, if you feel that way - then practice what you preach and don’t share your “truth” in the future. Simple. As for me, i like to learn from others and to communicate and that can’t be done through silence. Enjoy your monastery and quiet contemplation (it should help you)!
As i’ve told you before, you have been spending too much time steeped in the flat earth psyop - it’s bad for you. This isn’t a debate, which is a stupid game to keep morons busy - this is (supposed to be) an earnest discussion. It is not an appeal to consensus when you point out the fact that words have definitions, and that if you use different/opposite definitions you need to make that clear to the person you are discussing with if you want to communicate with them. It’s basic semantics/language, not appeal to anything.
Opacity is a scale, opaque is the maximum on that scale (100% of visible light to answer your question) - everything beneath that maximum is translucent and then the minimum - transparent.
Opaque means visible light (typically. in a scientific context it can refer to non-visible light frequencies) blocking - not partial / not a percentage of it - all of it. The ground is opaque and so we can not see through it. If it were non-opaque we could see through all of it or colloquially - through some of it.
Who said it wasn’t? It is just that depth appears [looks] different because of the laws of perspective. In reality it is exactly the same as the other dimensions (length and width), just in another axis.
You misspelt “no”. You might want to read it again and try to understand it earnestly. If you still don’t understand what i mean, and/or disagree then ask questions and/or provide specific criticism. Repeating “No you’re wrong, la la la la i can’t hear you” over and over is not specific criticism, it is embarrassing childish stupidity.
If there is a difference between ostensible and actual - then there is a necessary component of illusion/misunderstanding involved. If you take offense at the word, insert a synonym - instead of “illusion” read “not actual”.
Then you’ll agree and stop bitching?
Right, as i said repeatedly - the ground is not an optical illusion (that would be stupid), the apparent rising of it is! As you said, it appears to rise but it isn’t actually.
In terms of brightness - usually the deciding factor in “winning” (like with the stars during daylight) - the sun would always win.
Light can’t block other light, and though it can “wash out” dimmer light making it appear to us that it is blocked (like with light from the stars during daylight) the brighter light never “loses” in such “contests”.
In any case, your belief that it can cannot be demonstrated (on a smaller scale / repeatable controlled demonstration) which is another good indicator that it is wrong.
I don’t care for models. I care about determining what is going on in reality, and that is NOT what models are for.
Photos are 2D. They cannot (and do not) contain depth. No matter where the photographed target is - closer than, beyond, over the horizon - it will always be 2D!
Do you have, or can you find, 2 photographs (any two photographs) where you think one has depth in it and the other doesn’t? It may help to convey what you are thinking/saying.
As i’ve said before, what better base can there be for a claim than your own observations?! Go outside, watch a plane receding from you overhead. It will change apparent size as it does so. Take pictures so you can compare the size when overhead to the size as it approaches the horizon.
You really don’t seem to understand why things change apparent/angular size as they recede - otherwise you couldn’t believe that it would stop at some distance. You’re locked into defending some stupid position because you are trapped in a “debate” in your imagination (against yourself!). The sun doesn’t change apparent size MUCH, but that is no reason to get locked in to your position.
Yes! That’s what i’ve been saying to you this whole time. Depth comes from two eyes. Perspective doesn’t disappear (which causes the illusion/“not actual”/apparent tapering towards the vanishing point), at any distance. Depth disappears the moment you close one eye.
I’m only trying to help you - for both our benefits, despite your protests and childish behavior. It is not pride that encourages me to continue trying to discuss with/reach you. It IS your pride which prevents you from just no longer responding, communicating effectively, and enjoying this discussion which is about a topic you clearly/should have a great interest in!