“Plane has nothing to do with it.” - wrong
I know you believe that. The question is why? There is no plane/direction/dimension in which objects don’t appear smaller as they recede.
but what if that thing is already 100 feet away from you and moves along as dimension that is not depth , let say width, should it still get smaller as it does so?
Yes, because width is linear not circular. As the object moves horizontally it will necessarily increase distance from the observer and appear smaller. It’s an optical law - there are no exceptions.
If the object remained the same distance from the observer then it wouldn’t change apparent size - but we are talking about when objects do increase distance from the observer. Do you honestly believe that the sun (and ships, and anything else that appears to set “over the horizon”) is really NOT increasing distance from the observer as it moves?
Does this apparent size change with perspective last forever?
Yes, of course. That’s my whole point. It’s called perspective, and it always applies - regardless of size/scale or distance. Including the sun (which does decrease in apparent size as its distance increases), there are no examples of any object NOT decreasing in apparent size as they recede. Please feel free to suggest one (other than the sun), if you disagree!
Thats why thing in the sky are only refereed to in 2 dimensions , Right Ascension and Declination or Length and width, never depth.
This is incorrect. Astronomers talk about/calculate the distances [depth] to those objects (located by ascension and declination) all the time.
You seem to be confusing topography with topology. The sky is not 2D even if our plotting system for locating things in it was (which it also isn’t, it is conceived to be a spherical grid)
Nice baseless claim
You doubt that planes change apparent size as they recede away from you? Go look at them! What better “base” for a claim is there than your own observations?!
You seem to be confusing depth and size. Depth is hard/impossible to determine at some point because the pictures received by the eyes are essentially identical (no parallax) - (apparent) size is not effected and can be easily observed monocularly (one eye, no depth).
Nice baseless claim, please show me a shot of the iss crossing the sky with showing apparent size change. Cant do that
I, personally, wouldn’t bother and there are far better/easier targets than that one. There are certainly those (with powerful, expensive, auto-tracking telescopes) who can get you this shot you want though. Again, why do you believe these silly things? There are no examples of objects receding not changing apparent [angular] size, and i cannot understand why you think there are. It is as if you don’t understand why things appear smaller as they recede...
a slight density charge is not enough to cause refraction
This is obviously wrong, and trivially calculable/demonstrable. The refraction may be slight, but light ALWAYS refracts when the refractive index changes. Again, i cannot understand why you would ever believe it wouldn’t, or what reasoning you could concoct to support that view.
Air does not cause any noticeable refraction
Of course it does. Over short distances (and depending on angle of the light) it is imperceptible, but it is always there (just like angular size differences and for somewhat analogous reasons).
The more air the light travels through and the further it traverses through/across the gradient the more it refracts towards the ground. This is also the reason why the visible horizon appears slightly lower as you increase in altitude. It isn’t actually lower... it is being refracted.
when it YOUR PERCEPTION of light over distance, thats caused by atmospheric diffraction
No, diffraction (like refraction) is also objective and has nothing to do with perception. The object appears fuzzy because the light from it has been scattered by the air/matter in the way. I am not talking about diffraction, i am talking about refraction.
diffraction and refraction - they are one and the same.” wrong
Hey, you’ll get no argument from me. I was just mentioning that many scientists and textbook authors define it that way.
Diffraction is caused by blocking light, refraction is caused by changing lights speed.
using the globr explanation of “light being curved convexly towards the ground” due to refraction ,
There are no “globr” explanations. There are just explanations, and they either right or wrong (usually the latter). Refraction does occur in our air, and though this is commonly used as an “out”/rationalization/excuse by those obligated to the globe model in order to ignore observable evidence of a (mostly) planar earth - that is NOT what i’m doing!
when that is not whats going on at all
And what if it was? Would you want to know? If it wasn’t, and i were wrong - i would like to know that and to know how i can validate/demonstrate that!
This slippery slope false explanation allows glob'rs to claim things are magically refracted up, when they are not.
They can (and do/will) claim anything they want - though the refraction i am talking about tends to curve things down - not up again. If you assumed the world was spherical, as they are required to, then this could be used to explain why things can be seen “too far”. I don’t care about the tactical soundness in regards to the base pageantry and silly game of debate - i care about what is actually happening. Just because the fact that the air refracts can serve their rationalizations, doesn’t make what i am saying incorrect/false in and of itself.
called “the diffraction Limit”, depth no longer diffracts, because that aspect of the reflected light is unable to reach our eyes.
You are mistaken. The diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth. It happens with monocular vision (one eye, no depth). I don’t know where you picked this up.
“the horizon (the distance limit of our vision through air)” wrong, its not the limit to All Vision, its the Limit to depth, the other 2 dimensions of length and width are still perceivable.
This is an interesting claim - but i think it is wrong. The distance to the horizon changes with weather, the limits of the human eye are fixed (assuming you don’t grow old that is!).
Although the brain, and eye, has many ways of interpreting depth (one eyed people can do it too!) - the chief one that most are familiar with is parallax. If the picture the right and left eye receive are different, their comparison can be used to estimate/experience depth. At a certain distance (i expect well beyond the measly few miles to the visible horizon) - the pictures that the eyes receive are not different enough to reliably use that method. This is certainly a limit/function of human sight, but doesn’t have anything to do with the visible horizon or the angular resolution limits (aka diffraction limit).
Its actually so simple to get once you get it.
I think i get it, and have encountered and considered such ideas before. I also think it is clearly wrong, and if it were right - we should be able to observe such an effect on a smaller scale (perhaps with much smaller eyes and much closer together with less pixel density - which IS diffraction limit). The fact that we can’t is very telling.
I've seen demonstration of this with camera showing this effect on objects that's say as few inches tall at 100 feet away, that the bottom becomes occulted or “disappears” not because it went over any physical curve, because our perception of depth ends
Depth perception isn’t necessary for sight in any significant way. Closing one eye doesn’t make anything disappear / “occult” anything. I have seen such demonstrations as well and the cause is likely (once again) refraction (this time caused by the ground temperature causing air column gradient inversion) - the mirror on the hot road effect and/or actual obstruction by the road itself (which is not perfectly flat, sadly).
If “perception” were the cause, then magnification could restore the “occulted” portion. This cannot be done. The reason is because it isn’t perceptional - the light from the bottom of the “set” object is no longer reaching the distant observer.
Also, it wonderful to talk to you, but lets end this on a good note, learn what you can,
Likewise, and agreed!
but i find your just repeating what you think
Repetition is, alas, necessary for effective communication. I do try to avoid it, but if you misunderstand my position - repeating/rephrasing it is prudent. I would hope you would do, and are doing, the same in order for your perspective to be fully understood in kind. I know it is tedious, but education and effective communication are worth it!
you know try to make learning into a debate, thats not really helpful and im not into building a wall of misunderstanding,
Never! I loathe the base pageantry of debate. It’s for fools.
I prefer civil rational discourse and the collaborative pursuit of the truth - as all competent/capable students do.
I will always disagree when it is appropriate, and explain my reasoning/evidence at length - and i hope you can also do the same without letting it devolve into (or feel like it is) an argument/mindless debate.
Debate is a stupid game, and it is best avoided by the intelligent.
but i hope you rewatch the video a few times until you get it , gl.
I may do that, but i think you have helped me “get it”. Now i want to validate/test it. I currently think it is simply wrong.
“Plane has nothing to do with it.” - wrong
I know you believe that. The question is why? There is no plane/direction/dimension in which objects don’t appear smaller as they recede.
but what if that thing is already 100 feet away from you and moves along as dimension that is not depth , let say width, should it still get smaller as it does so?
Yes, because width is linear not circular. As the object moves horizontally it will necessarily increase distance from the observer and appear smaller. It’s an optical law - there are no exceptions.
If the object remained the same distance from the observer then it wouldn’t change apparent size - but we are talking about when objects do increase distance from the observer. Do you honestly believe that the sun (and ships, and anything else that appears to set “over the horizon”) is really NOT increasing distance from the observer as it moves?
Does this apparent size change with perspective last forever?
Yes, of course. That’s my whole point. It’s called perspective, and it always applies - regardless of size/scale or distance. Including the sun (which does decrease in apparent size as its distance increases), there are no examples of any object NOT decreasing in apparent size as they recede. Please feel free to suggest one (other than the sun), if you disagree!
Thats why thing in the sky are only refereed to in 2 dimensions , Right Ascension and Declination or Length and width, never depth.
This is incorrect. Astronomers talk about/calculate the distances [depth] to those objects (located by ascension and declination) all the time.
You seem to be confusing topography with topology. The sky is not 2D even if our plotting system for locating things in it was (which it also isn’t, it is conceived to be a spherical grid)
Nice baseless claim
You doubt that planes change apparent size as they recede away from you? Go look at them! What better “base” for a claim is there than your own observations?!
You seem to be confusing depth and size. Depth is hard/impossible to determine at some point because the pictures received by the eyes are essentially identical (no parallax) - (apparent) size is not effected and can be easily observed monocularly (one eye, no depth).
Nice baseless claim, please show me a shot of the iss crossing the sky with showing apparent size change. Cant do that
I, personally, wouldn’t bother and there are far better/easier targets than that one. There are certainly those (with powerful, expensive, auto-tracking telescopes) who can get you this shot you want though. Again, why do you believe these silly things? There are no examples of objects receding not changing apparent [angular] size, and i cannot understand why you think there are. It is as if you don’t understand why things appear smaller as they recede...
a slight density charge is not enough to cause refraction
This is obviously wrong, and trivially calculable/demonstrable. The refraction may be slight, but light ALWAYS refracts when the refractive index changes. Again, i cannot understand why you would ever believe it wouldn’t, or what reasoning you could concoct to support that view.
Air does not cause any noticeable refraction
Of course it does. Over short distances (and depending on angle of the light) it is imperceptible, but it is always there (just like angular size differences and for somewhat analogous reasons).
The more air the light travels through and the further it traverses through/across the gradient the more it refracts towards the ground. This is also the reason why the visible horizon appears slightly lower as you increase in altitude. It isn’t actually lower... it is being refracted.
when it YOUR PERCEPTION of light over distance, thats caused by atmospheric diffraction
No, diffraction (like refraction) is also objective and has nothing to do with perception. The object appears fuzzy because the light from it has been scattered by the air/matter in the way. I am not talking about diffraction, i am talking about refraction.
diffraction and refraction - they are one and the same.” wrong
Hey, you’ll get no argument from me. I was just mentioning that many scientists and textbook authors define it that way.
Diffraction is caused by blocking light, refraction is caused by changing lights speed.
using the globr explanation of “light being curved convexly towards the ground” due to refraction ,
There are no “globr” explanations. There are just explanations, and they either right or wrong (usually the latter). Refraction does occur in our air, and though this is commonly used as an “out”/rationalization/excuse by those obligated to the globe model in order to ignore observable evidence of a (mostly) planar earth - that is NOT what i’m doing!
when that is not whats going on at all
And what if it was? Would you want to know? If it wasn’t, and i were wrong - i would like to know that and to know how i can validate/demonstrate that!
This slippery slope false explanation allows glob'rs to claim things are magically refracted up, when they are not.
They can (and do/will) claim anything they want - though the refraction i am talking about tends to curve things down - not up again. If you assumed the world was spherical, as they are required to, then this could be used to explain why things can be seen “too far”. I don’t care about the tactical soundness in regards to the base pageantry and silly game of debate - i care about what is actually happening. Just because the fact that the air refracts can serve their rationalizations, doesn’t make what i am saying incorrect/false in and of itself.
called “the diffraction Limit”, depth no longer diffracts, because that aspect of the reflected light is unable to reach our eyes.
You are mistaken. The diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth. It happens with monocular vision (one eye, no depth). I don’t know where you picked this up.
“the horizon (the distance limit of our vision through air)” wrong, its not the limit to All Vision, its the Limit to depth, the other 2 dimensions of length and width are still perceivable.
This is an interesting claim - but i think it is wrong. The distance to the horizon changes with weather, the limits of the human eye are fixed (assuming you don’t grow old that is!).
Although the brain, and eye, has many ways of interpreting depth (one eyed people can do it too!) - the chief one that most are familiar with is parallax. If the picture the right and left eye receive are different, their comparison can be used to estimate/experience depth. At a certain distance (i expect well beyond the measly few miles to the visible horizon) - the pictures that the eyes receive are not different enough to reliably use that method. This is certainly a limit/function of human sight, but doesn’t have anything to do with the visible horizon or the angular resolution limits (aka diffraction limit).
Its actually so simple to get once you get it.
I think i get it, and have encountered and considered such ideas before. I also think it is clearly wrong, and if it were right - we should be able to observe such an effect on a smaller scale (perhaps with much smaller eyes and much closer together with less pixel density - which IS diffraction limit). The fact that we can’t is very telling.
I've seen demonstration of this with camera showing this effect on objects that's say as few inches tall at 100 feet away, that the bottom becomes occulted or “disappears” not because it went over any physical curve, because our perception of depth ends
Depth perception isn’t necessary for sight in any significant way. Closing one eye doesn’t make anything disappear / “occult” anything. I have seen such demonstrations as well and the cause is likely (once again) refraction (this time caused by the ground temperature causing air column gradient inversion) - the mirror on the hot road effect and/or actual obstruction by the road itself (which is not perfectly flat, sadly).
If “perception” were the cause, then magnification could restore the “occulted” portion. This cannot be done. The reason is because it isn’t perceptional - the light from the bottom of the “set” object is no longer reaching the distant observer.
Also, it wonderful to talk to you, but lets end this on a good note, learn what you can,
Likewise, and agreed!
but i find your just repeating what you think
Repetition is, alas, necessary for effective communication. I do try to avoid it, but if you misunderstand my position - repeating/rephrasing it is prudent. I would hope you would do, and are doing, the same in order to for your perspective to be fully understood in kind. I know it is tedious, but education and effective communication are worth it!
you know try to make learning into a debate, thats not really helpful and im not into building a wall of misunderstanding,
Never! I loathe the base pageantry of debate. It’s for fools.
I prefer civil rational discourse and the collaborative pursuit of the truth - as all competent/capable students do.
I will always disagree when it is appropriate, and explain my reasoning/evidence at length - and i hope you can also do the same without letting it devolve into (or feel like it is) an argument/mindless debate.
Debate is a stupid game, and it is best avoided by the intelligent.
but i hope you rewatch the video a few times until you get it , gl.
I may do that, but i think you have helped me “get it”. Now i want to validate/test it. I currently think it is simply wrong.
“Plane has nothing to do with it.” - wrong
I know you believe that. The question is why? There is no plane/direction/dimension in which objects don’t appear smaller as they recede.
but what if that thing is already 100 feet away from you and moves along as dimension that is not depth , let say width, should it still get smaller as it does so?
Yes, because width is linear not circular. As the object moves horizontally it will necessarily increase distance from the observer and appear smaller. It’s an optical law - there are no exceptions.
If the object remained the same distance from the observer then it wouldn’t change apparent size - but we are talking about when objects do increase distance from the observer. Do you honestly believe that the sun (and ships, and anything else that appears to set “over the horizon”) is really NOT increasing distance from the observer as it moves?
Does this apparent size change with perspective last forever?
Yes, of course. That’s my whole point. It’s called perspective, and it always applies - regardless of size/scale or distance. Including the sun (which does decrease in apparent size as its distance increases), there are no examples of any object NOT decreasing in apparent size as they recede. Please feel free to suggest one (other than the sun), if you disagree!
Thats why thing in the sky are only refereed to in 2 dimensions , Right Ascension and Declination or Length and width, never depth.
This is incorrect. Astronomers talk about/calculate the distances [depth] to those objects (located by ascension and declination) all the time.
You seem to be confusing topography with topology. The sky is not 2D even if our plotting system for locating things in it was (which it also isn’t, it is conceived to be a spherical grid)
Nice baseless claim
You doubt that planes change apparent size as they recede away from you? Go look at them! What better “base” for a claim is there than your own observations?!
You seem to be confusing depth and size. Depth is hard/impossible to determine at some point because the pictures received by the eyes are essentially identical (no parallax) - (apparent) size is not effected and can be easily observed monocularly (one eye, no depth).
Nice baseless claim, please show me a shot of the iss crossing the sky with showing apparent size change. Cant do that
I, personally, wouldn’t bother and there are far better/easier targets than that one. There are certainly those (with powerful, expensive, auto-tracking telescopes) who can get you this shot you want though. Again, why do you believe these silly things? There are no examples of objects receding not changing apparent [angular] size, and i cannot understand why you think there are. It is as if you don’t understand why things appear smaller as they recede...
a slight density charge is not enough to cause refraction
This is obviously wrong, and trivially calculable/demonstrable. The refraction may be slight, but light ALWAYS refracts when the refractive index changes. Again, i cannot understand why you would ever believe it wouldn’t, or what reasoning you could concoct to support that view.
Air does not cause any noticeable refraction
Of course it does. Over short distances (and depending on angle of the light) it is imperceptible, but it is always there (just like angular size differences and for somewhat analogous reasons).
The more air the light travels through and the further it traverses through/across the gradient the more it refracts towards the ground. This is also the reason why the visible horizon appears slightly lower as you increase in altitude. It isn’t actually lower... it is being refracted.
when it YOUR PERCEPTION of light over distance, thats caused by atmospheric diffraction
No, diffraction (like refraction) is also objective and has nothing to do with perception. The object appears fuzzy because the light from it has been scattered by the air/matter in the way. I am not talking about diffraction, i am talking about refraction.
diffraction and refraction - they are one and the same.” wrong
Hey, you’ll get no argument from me. I was just mentioning that many scientists and textbook authors define it that way.
Diffraction is caused by blocking light, refraction is caused by changing lights speed.
using the globr explanation of “light being curved convexly towards the ground” due to refraction ,
There are no “globr” explanations. There are just explanations, and they either right or wrong (usually the latter). Refraction does occur in our air, and though this is commonly used as an “out”/rationalization/excuse by those obligated to the globe model in order to ignore observable evidence of a (mostly) planar earth - that is NOT what i’m doing!
when that is not whats going on at all
And what if it was? Would you want to know? If it wasn’t, and i were wrong - i would like to know that and to know how i can validate/demonstrate that!
This slippery slope false explanation allows glob'rs to claim things are magically refracted up, when they are not.
They can (and do/will) claim anything they want - though the refraction i am talking about tends to curve things down - not up again. If you assumed the world was spherical, as they are required to, then this could be used to explain why things can be seen “too far”. I don’t care about the tactical soundness in regards to the base pageantry and silly game of debate - i care about what is actually happening. Just because the fact that the air refracts can serve their rationalizations, doesn’t make what i am saying incorrect/false in and of itself.
called “the diffraction Limit”, depth no longer diffracts, because that aspect of the reflected light is unable to reach our eyes.
You are mistaken. The diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth. It happens with monocular vision (one eye, no depth). I don’t know where you picked this up.
“the horizon (the distance limit of our vision through air)” wrong, its not the limit to All Vision, its the Limit to depth, the other 2 dimensions of length and width are still perceivable.
This is an interesting claim - but i think it is wrong. The distance to the horizon changes with weather, the limits of the human eye are fixed (assuming you don’t grow old that is!).
Although the brain, and eye, has many ways of interpreting depth (one eyed people can do it too!) - the chief one that most are familiar with is parallax. If the picture the right and left eye receive are different, their comparison can be used to estimate/experience depth. At a certain distance (i expect well beyond the measly few miles to the visible horizon) - the pictures that the eyes receive are not different enough to reliably use that method. This is certainly a limit/function of human sight, but doesn’t have anything to do with the visible horizon or the angular resolution limits (aka diffraction limit).
Its actually so simple to get once you get it.
I think i get it, and have encountered and considered such ideas before. I also think it is clearly wrong, and if it were right - we should be able to observe such an effect on a smaller scale (perhaps with much smaller eyes and much closer together with less pixel density - which IS diffraction limit). The fact that we can’t is very telling.
I've seen demonstration of this with camera showing this effect on objects that's say as few inches tall at 100 feet away, that the bottom becomes occulted or “disappears” not because it went over any physical curve, because our perception of depth ends
Depth perception isn’t necessary for sight in any significant way. Closing one eye doesn’t make anything disappear / “occult” anything. I have seen such demonstrations as well and the cause is likely (once again) refraction (this time caused by the ground temperature causing air column gradient inversion) - the mirror on the hot road effect and/or actual obstruction by the road itself (which is no perfectly flat, sadly).
If “perception” were the cause, then magnification could restore the “occulted” portion. This cannot be done. The reason is because it isn’t perceptional - the light from the bottom of the “set” object is no longer reaching the distant observer.
Also, it wonderful to talk to you, but lets end this on a good note, learn what you can,
Likewise, and agreed!
but i find your just repeating what you think
Repetition is, alas, necessary for effective communication. I do try to avoid it, but if you misunderstand my position - repeating/rephrasing it is prudent. I would hope you would do, and are doing, the same in order to for your perspective to be fully understood in kind. I know it is tedious, but education and effective communication are worth it!
you know try to make learning into a debate, thats not really helpful and im not into building a wall of misunderstanding,
Never! I loathe the base pageantry of debate. It’s for fools.
I prefer civil rational discourse and the collaborative pursuit of the truth - as all competent/capable students do.
I will always disagree when it is appropriate, and explain my reasoning/evidence at length - and i hope you can also do the same without letting it devolve into (or feel like it is) an argument/mindless debate.
Debate is a stupid game, and it is best avoided by the intelligent.
but i hope you rewatch the video a few times until you get it , gl.
I may do that, but i think you have helped me “get it”. Now i want to validate/test it. I currently think it is simply wrong.
“Plane has nothing to do with it.” - wrong
I know you believe that. The question is why? There is no plane/direction/dimension in which objects don’t appear smaller as they recede.
but what if that thing is already 100 feet away from you and moves along as dimension that is not depth , let say width, should it still get smaller as it does so?
Yes, because width is linear not circular. As the object moves horizontally it will necessarily increase distance from the observer and appear smaller. It’s an optical law - there are no exceptions.
If the object remained the same distance from the observer then it wouldn’t change apparent size - but we are talking about when objects do increase distance from the observer. Do you honestly believe that the sun (and ships, and anything else that appears to set “over the horizon”) is really NOT increasing distance from the observer as it moves?
Does this apparent size change with perspective last forever?
Yes, of course. That’s my whole point. It’s called perspective, and it always applies - regardless of size/scale or distance. Including the sun (which does decrease in apparent size as its distance increases), there are no examples of any object NOT decreasing in apparent size as they recede. Please feel free to suggest one (other than the sun), if you disagree!
Thats why thing in the sky are only refereed to in 2 dimensions , Right Ascension and Declination or Length and width, never depth.
This is incorrect. Astronomers talk about/calculate the distances [depth] to those objects (located by ascension and declination) all the time.
You seem to be confusing topography with topology. The sky is not 2D even if our plotting system for locating things in it was (which it also isn’t, it is conceived to be a spherical grid)
Nice baseless claim
You doubt that planes change apparent size as they recede away from you? Go look at them! What better “base” for a claim is there than your own observations?!
You seem to be confusing depth and size. Depth is hard/impossible to determine at some point because the pictures received by the eyes are essentially identical (no parallax) - (apparent) size is not effected and can be easily observed monocularly (one eye, no depth).
Nice baseless claim, please show me a shot of the iss crossing the sky with showing apparent size change. Cant do that
I, personally, wouldn’t bother and there are far better/easier targets than that one. There are certainly those (with powerful, expensive, auto-tracking telescopes) who can get you this shot you want though. Again, why do you believe these silly things? There are no examples of objects receding not changing apparent [angular] size, and i cannot understand why you think there are. It is as if you don’t understand why things appear smaller as they recede...
a slight density charge is not enough to cause refraction
This is obviously wrong, and trivially calculable/demonstrable. The refraction may be slight, but light ALWAYS refracts when the refractive index changes. Again, i cannot understand why you would ever believe it wouldn’t, or what reasoning you could concoct to support that view.
Air does not cause any noticeable refraction
Of course it does. Over short distances (and depending on angle of the light) it is imperceptible, but it is always there (just like angular size differences and for somewhat analogous reasons).
The more air the light travels through and the further it traverses through/across the gradient the more it refracts towards the ground. This is also the reason why the visible horizon appears slightly lower as you increase in altitude. It isn’t actually lower... it is being refracted.
when it YOUR PERCEPTION of light over distance, thats caused by atmospheric diffraction
No, diffraction (like refraction) is also objective and has nothing to do with perception. The object appears fuzzy because the light from it has been scattered by the air/matter in the way. I am not talking about diffraction, i am talking about refraction.
diffraction and refraction - they are one and the same.” wrong
Hey, you’ll get no argument from me. I was just mentioning that many scientists and textbook authors define it that way.
Diffraction is caused by blocking light, refraction is caused by changing lights speed.
using the globr explanation of “light being curved convexly towards the ground” due to refraction ,
There are no “globr” explanations. There are just explanations, and they either right or wrong (usually the latter). Refraction does occur in our air, and though this is commonly used as an “out”/rationalization/excuse by those obligated to the globe model in order to ignore observable evidence of a (mostly) planar earth - that is NOT what i’m doing!
when that is not whats going on at all
And what if it was? Would you want to know? If it wasn’t, and i were wrong - i would like to know that and to know how i can validate/demonstrate that!
This slippery slope false explanation allows glob'rs to claim things are magically refracted up, when they are not.
They can (and do/will) claim anything they want - though the refraction i am talking about tends to curve things down - not up again. If you assumed the world was spherical, as they are required to, then this could be used to explain why things can be seen “too far”. I don’t care about the tactical soundness in regards to the base pageantry and silly game of debate - i care about what is actually happening. Just because the fact that the air refracts can serve their rationalizations, doesn’t make what i am saying incorrect/false in and of itself.
called “the diffraction Limit”, depth no longer diffracts, because that aspect of the reflected light is unable to reach our eyes.
You are mistaken. The diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth. It happens with monocular vision (one eye, no depth). I don’t know where you picked this up.
“the horizon (the distance limit of our vision through air)” wrong, its not the limit to All Vision, its the Limit to depth, the other 2 dimensions of length and width are still perceivable.
This is an interesting claim - but i think it is wrong. The distance to the horizon changes with weather, the limits of the human eye are fixed (assuming you don’t grow old that is!).
Although the brain, and eye, has many ways of interpreting depth (one eyed people can do it too!) - the chief one that most are familiar with is parallax. If the picture the right and left eye receive are different, their comparison can be used to estimate/experience depth. At a certain distance (i expect well beyond the measly few miles to the visible horizon) - the pictures that the eyes receive are not different enough to reliably use that method. This is certainly a limit/function of human sight, but doesn’t have anything to do with the visible horizon or the angular resolution limits (aka diffraction limit).
Its actually so simple to get once you get it.
I think i get it, and have encountered and considered such ideas before. I also think it is clearly wrong, and if it were right - we should be able to observe such an effect on a smaller scale (perhaps with much smaller eyes and much closer together with less pixel density (which IS diffraction limit). The fact that we can’t is very telling.
I've seen demonstration of this with camera showing this effect on objects that's say as few inches tall at 100 feet away, that the bottom becomes occulted or “disappears” not because it went over any physical curve, because our perception of depth ends
Depth perception isn’t necessary for sight in any significant way. Closing one eye doesn’t make anything disappear / “occult” anything. I have seen such demonstrations as well and the cause is likely (once again) refraction (this time caused by the ground temperature causing air column gradient inversion) - the mirror on the hot road effect and/or actual obstruction by the road itself (which is no perfectly flat, sadly).
If “perception” were the cause, then magnification could restore the “occulted” potion. This cannot be done. The reason is because it isn’t perceptional - the light from the bottom of the “set” object is no longer reaching the distant observer.
Also, it wonderful to talk to you, but lets end this on a good note, learn what you can,
Likewise, and agreed!
but i find your just repeating what you think
Repetition is, alas, necessary for effective communication. I do try to avoid it, but if you misunderstand my position - repeating/rephrasing it is prudent. I would hope you would do, and are doing, the same in order to for your perspective to be fully understood in kind. I know it is tedious, but education and effective communication are worth it!
you know try to make learning into a debate, thats not really helpful and im not into building a wall of misunderstanding,
Never! I loathe the base pageantry of debate. It’s for fools.
I prefer civil rational discourse and the collaborative pursuit of the truth - as all competent/capable students do.
I will always disagree when it is appropriate, and explain my reasoning/evidence at length - and i hope you can also do the same without letting it devolve into (or feel like it is) an argument/mindless debate.
Debate is a stupid game, and it is best avoided by the intelligent.
but i hope you rewatch the video a few times until you get it , gl.
I may do that, but i think you have helped me “get it”. Now i want to validate/test it. I currently think it is simply wrong.