That was english! I think you might want me to elaborate, not change languages.
You might want to do some research on gus grissom and his infamous picture of a lemon on a coat-hanger hung from the command module that would be his crematorium days later.
You might want to do further research on what happened to the independent contractor thomas baron and his family following a critical review of the same module. Accidents...
How do you know?
You discuss with them. “AI” can’t discuss, it can only regurgitate. It can’t read and understand, so ostensible reading comprehension issues and non-sequitur are also red flags.
Everyone is a bot until proven otherwise.
died
Yes, died in a “freak accident” for being publically skeptical that any of the garbage that had been built would actually work and NOT kill the crew.
Very well. Read the bible then! all the passages describing a flat world as believed/conceived by its authors are in there!
Many of those reference books i suggested you seek out if you were interested in learning about this, contain specific lists of passages, which could save you some time - but it is yours to spend as you like!
He spoke to a devil worshiping alien named Lam
That’s nonsense, obviously. Still, some people fall for such nonsense. Did he ever refer to lam as an alien? In any case, the sketches he drew bare no resemblance to the modern gray we know and love (invented in the early 90’s).
who gave him the code "do as thou wilt".
Classic libertine indulgence. Exactly what you’d expect from an LA sex cult dickhead like him.
He was also an MI6 agent called Agent 666
That would at least be interesting. As i said, my money is on him being an agent - but based on his locale/circles, it is unlikely he was mi6.
Just look at that dickhead. Literally.
There may well be a connection between him and ufo’s, but it doesn’t involve opening any “portals”.
My money is on him being an agent, or at the very least a useful dickhead/idiot.
There are many of them, go look them up! Don’t be lazy!
There are many lists of them in books on biblical cosmology/worldview conception too, which is why i recommended you start there. You could even search our very own c/christianity for a list, but as i said - it is better if you go earnestly looking for yourself because i could be biasing you with selective sources.
If you earnestly search and can’t find any sources/books, i’ll be happy to point you in the right direction.
Of course i could do your work for you as you ask, but you would learn less and be a less capable student for it.
The biblical/hebrew conception of the world [universe] isn’t the scope of your post?
I thought you wanted a list of the biblical passages which clearly convey the biblical conception of a flat world?
They are usually found in such books! There are a lot of them - it isn’t subtle, nor is it supposed to be.
As i said, if you earnestly look for them and can’t find them, i can help point you in the right direction.
it isn’t, but there are many books available (hundreds, if not thousands of years of them) about the biblical/hebrew conceptions of the world available which outline such things.
If you earnestly look and can’t find any, i can suggest some - but it is better that you find them yourself (i could bias you by suggesting specific sources).
wrong.
I know you want that to be the case, but there is no scholarly debate here. Everyone is in complete agreement who is competent and has studied the text. This is going back many centuries / arguably millennia.
The biblical view of the world (i.e. universe) is inherited from the hebrew view. They are one and the same.
It is a flat world set immovably/fixed on pillars covered by a firmament with vaults connecting to the waters below and above (which were opened temporarily to flood the world that time).
sauce and feel free to follow the links
You don’t seem to understand what i’m saying, This isn’t an issue of selective translation. There is no weaseling out of it. The world is described as flat in the bible many times, because the people who wrote it believed it was. There is no argument, although i understand why you would like there to be one.
Perhaps, i may check it out at some point though in general i don’t watch videos.
Assuming/calculating that the earth is spherical and the size we are taught. there is categorically no way to see any discernible curvature of the horizon from the top of any building, or commercial airplane (even if they let you in the cockpit).
The answers are :
Does The Bible Teach That The Earth is Flat?
Yes, without any doubt. All competent/knowledgable biblical scholars and historians recognize and admit this. You can read it for yourself.
Does The Catholic Church Teach That The Earth is Flat?
Not today, but many of the early church fathers (arguably including a pope or two) absolutely did. It is swept under the rug and denied by modern catholics at every opportunity, but it doesn’t change history.
To any and all with an interest in this subject (for, against, neutral), please join us on flatearthresearch to explore and exchange our perspectives on it!
with buildings tall enough to see the Earth's curvature
No, there most certainly are not. Many people believe they can see the curve of the horizon even from sea level or on a commercial plane (MUCH higher than any building). It is completely impossible to see any such curvature from either (even if it existed), but people still believe they do. Placebo is powerful business.
Yes, bob lazar is a ball munching phony.
The slightest bit of research on that despicable ingrate will reveal that very quickly.
Crater earth is a fun fiction, but it just “passes the buck” on the real issues with the globe model.
Planets are wandering stars. They aren’t terra firma like we see on tv.
fake and gay, confirmed.
There is a good paper out there on the parallax issue(s) and lazy reusing of dlp (most likely/presumably) backgrounds during apollo.
and their insane black budgets for it to be a nothingburger.
Oh, i assure you sir/madame - the embezzlement is quite real.
The rest of it is hollywood ;)
i love how you are dead serious, and your faith is unshakable in the face of any possible evidence!
Pardon the delays, busy here.
Life should get in the way! No pardons ought be required!
It is important for our purposes to be clear on definitions.
Agreed, which is why i have been very explicit and straightforward about them. If you need any clarification on them, please ask!
I am only aware of the correct one
Lol, if only it were so simple ;)
which is that massive objects attract other massive objects relative to their mass
That is the newtonian definition yes, from the “law” of universal gravitation. It has generally not been used for 70+ years. Modern physicists do not think there is any attraction between objects, nor define gravitation that way.
the problem is that it does exactly this, and nobody knows why
So it is believed! But belief has no place in knowledge, least of all science. It is known as “bias” and is a 4 letter word ;)
gravity must act faster than the speed of light
Indeed, one of the many impossible things it must do. If it were real, that is!
Because it isn’t real, it doesn’t have to do any of those things - and doesn’t.
but aren't understanding the actual problems
I understand many of them pretty well, but i could always learn more!
instead, they have been deliberately (((stifled))). Ask for more if interested.
In general i think we are in agreement on this. I am very much asking for more, and would like to subscribe to the newsletter!
Some of what we are discussing has relevance to what i call aether-mcarthyism, an example of the “stifling” above. No one ever seems to consider the military / national security significance of physics ;)
Clarify your view, and I will suggest as I can.
Fair enough. The law [phenomenon] of gravity is caused by density, but not the density you are likely thinking of.
Things only fall because they are heavier than the volume of media they displace. The density is weight density, and the interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media displaced by it is what causes gravity, levity, and neutrality.
There are no experiments (that i am aware of anyway!) that contradict this, or support your view that “gravitation” is in fact responsible for those phenomena. In fact, the only experiments that exist regarding gravity show plainly that the interplay mentioned above is certainly the cause (experimentally verified).
Before we go too far down the rabbit hole, i would like to clarify that an experiment is NOT an observation. Many things presented as experiments, especially in regards to gravitation, are in fact - merely observations. The cavendish observation/procedure is probably the quintessential one. It is in no way an experiment, was never referred to as an experiment by anyone involved with it, and does not even involve a hypothesis.
Experiments are hypothesis tests. They, provisionally, validate or invalidate a valid hypothesis by establishing a causal relationship between at least one IV and DV. Hopefully we can agree on this scientific definition, and discard the colloquial erroneous/unscientific ones.
Has what you are describing ever been taught?
Certainly! Has it been taught by anyone other than me? I assume so, though it would be surprising if they used the exact same terminology.
It can't be known to be real, but this doesn't make it unreal, as it can't be known to be fictional either
Things we make up are, by default, not real. Doubly so in science! It has to be known/demonstrated to be real and measured in order to be part of empiricism [aka science].
Again, you ascribe significance to actions in equations.
You are misunderstanding me. There is no significance to fictional terms in an equation which describe things which do not exist in reality.
The concept of mass is similarly ancient, though was only called such during Keplerian times.
Again, that mass could not possibly be the mass we use today. That is a synonym for matter. There is no magical field in keplerian times to bestow weight to base mass. Please let me know if you disagree!
and only much later did density come along, during when gas physics were being on (I say this as I suspect this is where you are heading).
Density is at least as old as archimedes, and likely much older. The density you are talking about, mass density, could obviously only exist after newton.
Generally, scientific principles are overturned by others, and nothing has overturned this one
Lol, making things up isn’t science. Proposing and believing stupid things, then teaching it en masse to scores of students is NOT science. Epicurus never established any scientific principle. There is nothing to overturn. Ergo, with newton’s invocation of it, there is also nothing to overturn.
except possibly how it was originated, but this can't be an argument against it.
Of course it can, and should! When we make things up / guess, instead of practicing rigorous science, we are essentially guaranteed to be wrong, and are engaging in mythology. Of course it isn’t completely impossible that we could guess and turn out to be correct, but this would be both extremely rare and require extraordinary validation.
This is just a hypothetical to explain the issue here.
I didn’t say it was always easy/convenient to measure them! I just said that everything real can be measured. It’s a fundamental axiom of science, and required for it (empiricism). Yes, you can measure the volume and weight of a cloud. No, it isn't easy or convenient.
Proving realness of any natural mechanism is impossible
It is done through experiment. You hypothesize the mechanism and then experimentally validate it to confirm/refute that hypothesis. I agree it isn’t foolproof, is provisional, and historically is doomed to be overturned - but it is certainly (provisionally) possible.
All that can be known is falseness
Science is comprised only of partial, provisional, positive statements. Negative statements require the totality of knowledge to verify. This is the cause of clarke’s first law.
it should be noted that the attraction you describe is literally what gravitation is
So you believe, and i do not! That is the rub! Science has no place for belief, except limitedly in generation of hypothesis.
so usefulness is all that we have
Perhaps, but it is important to be aware of the distinction all the same! Conflating the two together is a grave mistake. I agree with sagan on this point, that “correct” is absolutely determined as best as possible - yet still provisionally - by experiment in science.
His 'calculations of a flat plate', where he 'proves' that heavier than air flight was impossible
Interesting! So not so much a “contribution” as an impediment to powered flight, but interesting all the same. Clarke’s first law strikes again!
Basically, we have no idea what year this is, and Newton, without explicitly saying so, was excluding certain jewish chronological works that caused misplaced eras.
Interesting! And thanks for the link - i’ll take a look. It seems newton may be a source for our modern “phantom time hypothesis” after all!
The top two panels are the same.
NPC’s won’t/can’t do more research than a couple quick google searches and “factchecker”/“debunker” canned responses anyway.
Everything on both lists could be absolutely real, and they would never know.
PEOPLE WHO USE THE WORD AUTHORITARIAN
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.
IM JUST TELLING YOU FACTS
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.
AND REFUSES TO LARN HOW REALITY WORKS
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 :(
- “please provide specific examples so we can discuss them.”
Since there are so many examples “ALL OVER THIS THREAD” why can’t/couldn’t you mention even one specifically?
- I'll skip this part
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!
CORECT YOUR WRONG IS NOT PART OF TEACHING
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.
YOU HAVE NO DUTY
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.
NO, NOT AT ALL, SILENCE IS GOLDEN, YOU NEED TO LEARN TO STFU
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)!
SO APPEAL TO CON-SENSES
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.
OK, WHICH PERCENTASGE OF LIGHT BLOCKING?
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.
DEPTH IS QUITE PHYSICAL, ITS REALLY THERE
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.
“ Do you understand what i am saying now?” YES
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.
APPERENT DOES NOT MEAN ILLUSION, IT MEANS ostensible rather than actual
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?
IT DOESNT MAKE THAT GROUND AN OPTICAL ILLUSION.
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.
BUT ITS JUST AN OPTICAL BATTLE OF TWO APPERENTS THINGS AND THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE WINNER
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.
NO ONE SAID MAKING MODEL WAS EASY
I don’t care for models. I care about determining what is going on in reality, and that is NOT what models are for.
LOOK AT 25 PHOTOS OF A ZOOMED IN HORIZON WHERE YOU CAN STILL SEE THINGS PROTRUDING FROM THE HORIZON, NOTICE HOW THINGS BEFORE THE HORIZON ARE 3D WHILE THINGS BEYOND THE HORIZON ARE NOT
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.
oH LOOK, ANTHER BASELESS CLAIM
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.
DID THE DEPTH DISAPEAR?
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.
“your foolish pride” PROJECTION
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!
WRONG, ITS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE CORRECT ORDER, SO YOU ALWAYS KNOW YOUR PLACE
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!
YA, BY YOU REVERTING TO YOUR IM A VICTIM FEELINGS TO PROTECT YOUR PRIDE IN BEING A LOW IQ STALKER + TROLLER
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.
IM JUST TELLING YOU THE TRUTH,
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!).
YOUR USING DOUBLE SPEAK AND WRONG THINK
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.
THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP HARPING ON YOUR EMOTIONAL DAMAGE AND FEELINGS OF ATTITUDE, IS IT TO DISGUISE THE WEAKNESS OF YOUR LOGIC
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!
IM NOT TEACHING ANYTHING, IM JUST CORRECTING YOUR WRONG.
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!
ALSO TEACHERS GET PAID
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?
THIS WORD ALSO HAS SYNONYMS WHICH HINT AS ITS OBSURRED COMPLTE MEANING
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.
“Depth appears different due to perspective, but that is an illusion – obviously.” WRONG
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?
THE GROUND AT THE HORIZON IS REALLY THERE , ITS NOT A OPTICAL ILLUSION, IT IS QUITE PRYSICAL
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?
IVE SEENS TONS OF VIDEO OF ITEMS DISPPEARING BOTTTOM FIRST OVER 50 FEET ON A TOTALLY FLAT FLOOR
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.
“but you think depth exists in 2D” GOOD
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.
YEAH FOR A SHIP 10 MILES AWAY, SURE, BUT THE SUN IS MUCH MUCH FURTHER AWAY
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.
WELL IF DEPTH IS AN ANGLE, WHERE DOES THIS ANGLE END
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.
“Experiential depth is from parallax” STOP MAKING UP WORDS THAT MEAN SHIT, PARRALAX IS COMPARING ONE VIWW TO ANOTHER
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?
, AND DEPTH IS NOT DUE TO YOU HAVING TWO EYES, WE WENT OVER THIS
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? :)
OBVIUOSLY YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF DIFFACTION LIMIT IS POOR
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?
wHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THE DEFINITIONS IN THE DICTIONARY ARE PERFECT ALL THE TIME
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?
WHY DO YOU ASSUME IM UNCORMFORTABLE
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?
IVE ASKED YOU 6 TIMES TO STOP BUGGING ME WITH YOUR MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF REALITY
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!
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.
This is a common misunderstanding, “they” are talking about the telemetry tapes. Not videotapes/footage/photos.