I THOUGHT I BLOCKED YOUR RETARDED ASS

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!

OPAQUE MEANS TRANLUCENT

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...

ITS YOUR DUMB ASS THAT IS MISCONSTRUEING APPERNT AND ILLUSION

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?

OF COURSE THE GROUND CAN BLOCK THINGS

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.

YOUR DESCRIBING THE APPERNT SIZE LIMIT OF AN OBJECT,

As i’ve explained several times now (effective communication takes repetition!), apparent size is caused by perspective.

YOU DONT UNDERSTASND WHAT THE DIFFRACTRION LIMT IS

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.

THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT IS BASED ON YOUR EYE HEIGHT,

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.

SO WHEN YOU USE A ZOOM LENSE, YOUV CHANGED YOUR EYE LENSE, SO U CHANGED THE DISTANCE, DUH

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).

THE DIFFACTION LIMIT (AKA THE HORIZON) IT S NOT JUST AT THAT LINE, ITS ALL AROUND YOU IN 360 DECREES

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.

ITS THE LIMIT OF PERCIEVING DEPTH

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!

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?

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.

i THINK THE POPLE THAT CALL fLAT eARTH A PSYOP ARE THE PSYOP

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.

NAW YOUR JUST HERE TO WASTE MY TIME

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.

WOW SEE THIS IS HOW STUPID YUO ARE

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!

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

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 :(

YOUVE MUCH TO LEARN

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!

I THOUGHT I BLOCKED YOUR RETARDED ASS

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!

OPAQUE MEANS TRANLUCENT

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...

ITS YOUR DUMB ASS THAT IS MISCONSTRUEING APPERNT AND ILLUSION

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?

OF COURSE THE GROUND CAN BLOCK THINGS

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.

YOUR DESCRIBING THE APPERNT SIZE LIMIT OF AN OBJECT,

As i’ve explained several times now (effective communication takes repetition!), apparent size is caused by perspective.

YOU DONT UNDERSTASND WHAT THE DIFFRACTRION LIMT IS

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.

THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT IS BASED ON YOUR EYE HEIGHT,

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.

SO WHEN YOU USE A ZOOM LENSE, YOUV CHANGED YOUR EYE LENSE, SO U CHANGED THE DISTANCE, DUH

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).

THE DIFFACTION LIMIT (AKA THE HORIZON) IT S NOT JUST AT THAT LINE, ITS ALL AROUND YOU IN 360 DECREES

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.

ITS THE LIMIT OF PERCIEVING DEPTH

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!

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?

Now you’re asking the right questions! Yes, the sun is within the diffraction limit (everything you can resolve as an abject 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.

i THINK THE POPLE THAT CALL fLAT eARTH A PSYOP ARE THE PSYOP

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.

NAW YOUR JUST HERE TO WASTE MY TIME

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.

WOW SEE THIS IS HOW STUPID YUO ARE

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!

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

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 :(

YOUVE MUCH TO LEARN

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!