MY CONDESENSION IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED
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.
AND YOURE RESISTING LEARNING
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?
THE REASON YOU DONT UNDERSTAND OPAQUE IS BECAUSE IT IS A SCALE
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).
dOES THAT MEAN THAT DEPTH IS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION, THAT ITS NOT REALLY THRERE ?
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.
YES, THE GROUND IS OBSTRUCTING THE APPERENT ANGLE TO THE SUN
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.
ANGULAR RESOLUTION
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.
i KEEP TELLING YOU THEY ARE NOT.
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.
A THREAD WILL DISPPEAR FROM YOUR EYE AFTER 10 FEET, IS THAT BECAUSE ITS REACHED ITS APPERENT SIZE LIMIT OR REACHED THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT?
Both! They are one and the same.
(ITS THE FIRST) tHE SUN IS ALWAYS BEYONG THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT, BUT ITS STILL RESOLVABLE IN 2D, length AND WIDTH, NEVER DEPTH.
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.
CHANGING THE ANGLE OF INCEDENT LIGHT JUST ENOUGH FOR THE OPTICS TO LET ITS REFRACTED LIGHT REACH YOUR EYE
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.
i SUPPOSE YOU COULD DO THE SAME WITH TH SUN
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...
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
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!
THOSE LINES BEING 1. YUOR EYE HIEGHT + 2 DISTANCE TO THE OBLECT - AS THAT ANGLE APPROACHES ZERO, ITS DEPTH IS UNABL TO BE PERCIEVED
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.
think OF THAT WORD AS A SCALE OF OPAQUNESS
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.
aLSO AS CONVERSATION IS BETWEEN 2 WILLING PEOPLE, THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS IS
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.
MY CONDESENSION IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED
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.
AND YOURE RESISTING LEARNING
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?
THE REASON YOU DONT UNDERSTAND OPAQUE IS BECAUSE IT IS A SCALE
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).
dOES THAT MEAN THAT DEPTH IS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION, THAT ITS NOT REALLY THRERE ?
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 that width or length. They are arbitrary (by convention) linear dimensions. Depth appears different due to perspective, but that is an illusion - obviously.
YES, THE GROUND IS OBSTRUCTING THE APPERENT ANGLE TO THE SUN
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.
ANGULAR RESOLUTION
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.
i KEEP TELLING YOU THEY ARE NOT.
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.
A THREAD WILL DISPPEAR FROM YOUR EYE AFTER 10 FEET, IS THAT BECAUSE ITS REACHED ITS APPERENT SIZE LIMIT OR REACHED THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT?
Both! They are one and the same.
(ITS THE FIRST) tHE SUN IS ALWAYS BEYONG THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT, BUT ITS STILL RESOLVABLE IN 2D, length AND WIDTH, NEVER DEPTH.
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.
CHANGING THE ANGLE OF INCEDENT LIGHT JUST ENOUGH FOR THE OPTICS TO LET ITS REFRACTED LIGHT REACH YOUR EYE
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.
i SUPPOSE YOU COULD DO THE SAME WITH TH SUN
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...
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
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!
THOSE LINES BEING 1. YUOR EYE HIEGHT + 2 DISTANCE TO THE OBLECT - AS THAT ANGLE APPROACHES ZERO, ITS DEPTH IS UNABL TO BE PERCIEVED
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.
think OF THAT WORD AS A SCALE OF OPAQUNESS
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.
aLSO AS CONVERSATION IS BETWEEN 2 WILLING PEOPLE, THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS IS
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.
MY CONDESENSION IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED
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.
AND YOURE RESISTING LEARNING
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?
THE REASON YOU DONT UNDERSTAND OPAQUE IS BECAUSE IT IS A SCALE
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).
dOES THAT MEAN THAT DEPTH IS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION, THAT ITS NOT REALLY THRERE ?
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 that width or length. They are arbitrary (by convention) linear dimensions. Depth appears different due to perspective, but that is an illusion - obviously.
YES, THE GROUND IS OBSTRUCTING THE APPERENT ANGLE TO THE SUN
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.
ANGULAR RESOLUTION
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.
i KEEP TELLING YOU THEY ARE NOT.
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.
A THREAD WILL DISPPEAR FROM YOUR EYE AFTER 10 FEET, IS THAT BECAUSE ITS REACHED ITS APPERENT SIZE LIMIT OR REACHED THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT?
Both! They are one and the same.
(ITS THE FIRST) tHE SUN IS ALWAYS BEYONG THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT, BUT ITS STILL RESOLVABLE IN 2D, length AND WIDTH, NEVER DEPTH.
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.
CHANGING THE ANGLE OF INCEDENT LIGHT JUST ENOUGH FOR THE OPTICS TO LET ITS REFRACTED LIGHT REACH YOUR EYE
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.
i SUPPOSE YOU COULD DO THE SAME WITH TH SUN
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...
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
I know that it has nothing to do with depth, but i understand that your (unique to you) arbitrarily 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!
THOSE LINES BEING 1. YUOR EYE HIEGHT + 2 DISTANCE TO THE OBLECT - AS THAT ANGLE APPROACHES ZERO, ITS DEPTH IS UNABL TO BE PERCIEVED
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.
think OF THAT WORD AS A SCALE OF OPAQUNESS
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.
aLSO AS CONVERSATION IS BETWEEN 2 WILLING PEOPLE, THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS IS
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.