The ground is non opaque , opaque being translucent or see though
Opaque is the opposite of translucent or see through. If the ground were translucent or see through, then we would expect to see through the ground and it wouldn’t fully “occult” things anymore. Right?
You are so busy yelling, insulting, and becoming emotional that you don’t even notice the MANY silly mistakes you make.
it optically rising, is not an optical illusion
So the ground is REALLY rising in the distance? And railroad tracks are REALLY growing closer and closer together in the distance as they appear to us? Are you sure it doesn’t just LOOK like these things are happening because of the laws of perspective (i.e. they are optical illusions)? You don’t actually think you have to go uphill on a flat plane to reach the horizon do you?
The optical rising is precisely that - optical. It isn’t actually rising and as such it can’t actually block anything.
apparent size and the diffraction limit are not the same thing, stop conflarting the 2
I’m not, you are just misunderstanding me. The diffraction limit is the distance where you stop being able to resolve an object. Technically it is right at (or right beyond) the distance where the object you attempt to resolve has shrunk to (or beyond) a point. The reason for apparent size has nothing to do with the diffraction limit, it is due to perspective. Please let me know if you still don’t understand or need more clarification!
When you zoom ion on the boat - YOUR NOT USING YOUR EYE
How would you zoom in with your eye? Why are you answering a (stupid) question no one asked? The question was - if a boat disappears from view and no longer has visible depth long before reaching the horizon (what you call the “diffraction limit”) then what is the diffraction limit at all? It can’t be the point at which you can’t perceive the depth of distant objects anymore, because that would necessarily include the tiny boat which you can’t see the depth of and ISN’T at the diffraction limit yet (according to you)?
NO MY UNDERWTANDING OF DIFFRACTION LIMIT IS NOT UNIQU TO ME
It is not the correct/common understanding. you have made up a new term with new attributes. Or someone else did, and you adopted it.
Diffraction limit means something. It has a definition which you can look up whenever you feel like it. It has nothing at all to do with the perception of depth. Go ahead, look it up.
dUUDE fLAT eARTH IS NOT THE pSYOP.
I agree. “Flat earth” is not the psyop. The flat earth psyop is the psyop. The shape of the world, or studying independently to determine what it is - is in no way a psyop. The massively advertised and funded advertising campaign of “flat earth” - often including ostensibly stupid, and trivially refutable claims like that perspective is the cause of sunsets IS. It is a controlled opposition and part of the larger anti-flat earth psyop designed to prevent, suppress, and discredit this valuable subject and its earnest researchers.
YOUR TOO DUMB TO LEARN ANYYTHING
Lol. You have been struggling to answer my simple questions and scream and insult when i don’t automatically agree with you :( It would be easy for me to conclude that you are too stupid to understand my questions or criticisms of your views, but i know that communication takes time and you are suffering from pride :( I would like to help, but you sure aren’t making it easy!
Pride is a fool’s fortress and shame’s cloak. Cast it off if you can. It’s hurting you, and preventing you from being able to share your views as well as refine them. It’s also preventing you from properly understanding me, because you assume i must be stupid to protect your damaged and flimsy pride :(
fOR THE LOVE OF GOD , GO AWAY.
You began this conversation, and i know it didn’t go the way you hoped it would where everyone in your echo chamber automatically agrees with you and parrots what you say. However you have no obligation to continue it or to learn anything - ever! You can keep thinking that opaque means translucent/transparent, you can keep thinking that perception of depth has some bearing on angular size (it doesn’t), and you can keep thinking that the diffraction limit has something to do with depth perception (it doesn’t).
I don’t like that you will continue to be demonstrably wrong and try and share those mistakes with others completely unwittingly and with undeserved condescension - but i can’t stop you and i can’t force you to do any better (nor would i if I could)!
I just want to help you to share your ideas effectively, and to expose them to rational criticism and validation so that they can become better refined. Screaming and running away from that is what the religious do to protect their flimsy beliefs. Don’t be a zealot if you can help it, and stay frosty!
The rising optical non opaque ground that ends at your eye height, thats why the background becomes occulted
The rising of that non opaque ground is an optical illusion, how can an optical illusion physically block light? Can you demonstrate this on a smaller scale? If not, why not?
Your example it just ridiculous cause i dont think you could ever see a car past the horizon
I should have been more careful with my phrasing. I meant beyond the distance to the visible horizon at sea level (which is a few miles give or take - and you claim is the diffraction limit/distance) You can easily see beyond a few miles from a higher vantage point, like a mountain - which is why i specified that in the example.
If you believe that the diffraction limit changes when you are up higher - what causes that in your view? Diffraction limit does not change with altitude, and is a physical limitation of the eye/receiver itself.
you just contradicted yourself by saying of course they are different things and then stating how they are the same
This is why we need repetition in communication! You just misunderstood me, but your misunderstanding only became clear when you repeated your interpretation of what i told you! Now i can clarify your misunderstanding. This is the way it is supposed to work!
The horizon isn’t exactly the diffraction limit. The diffraction limit IS the distance at which objects (the distance depends on the size of the object) shrink to dots, then become fuzzy dots, and then disappear. The example you gave of the small boats that completely disappear but can be zoomed in upon and fully restored is the perfect example. They are beyond the diffraction limit for the eye, which is why they are no longer visible - even though they are still there and the light from them is still reaching your eye. They can only be brought back into view by the eye with magnification, and they are not yet at the distance of the horizon. This shows plainly that the horizon and the diffraction limit are separate. Please let me know if you still don’t understand or disagree!
Objects can become too apparently small to see well before the diffraction limit, and just because an object has reached the diffraction limit, doesnt mean it will shrink to a dot.
Your definition of diffraction limit is unique to you. It has a meaning to everyone else, and has nothing to do with depth perception. I think i understand your particular meaning, but you haven’t been able to convey/explain what depth has to do with seeing objects. The boats that have shrunk too small to see anymore but are not beyond the horizon yet don’t have any depth. But you say they are not yet at the diffraction limit? So things that are within/before the diffraction limit can also lack depth? Then what really determines when depth suddenly stops being perceivable, if it isn’t the distance to the diffraction limit?
you can perceive depth from one vantage point,
Yes, with two eyes. Those are the two vantage points which allows for the brain to process the parallax into experiential depth.
With one eye, that can’t happen. It’s just like watching a tv. Without the 3d glasses, you will not experience depth. You can still infer depth (from artistic perspective, light and shadow, etc. but the image you are viewing is 2D and 2D has no depth. Please let me know if you still disagree that 2D has no depth.
question is beyond the diffraction limit, so depth never reaches your eyes.
There is no depth in a 2D image, and images of things beyond the diffraction limit can’t be seen as anything but a blur... You fundamentally don’t seem to understand what the diffraction limit is, or why.
Depth is not required to see an objects angular size.
some of us dont need parroting
You misunderstand. Repetition is not merely parroting (though it certainly can be)
Repeating exactly what you said again, either you or me, is usually not helpful/elucidating.
Repeating what i understood from what you said IS, and is required to be certain that my understanding of what you said is what you meant to say. Language is imprecise, and we are not perfect.
Im just trying to tell you facts you demonstrated here
I’m more interested in demonstrating/validating the facts you are claiming are correct. Anyone can (and often does) claim facts - but that isn’t good enough in and of itself to determine if the claimed fact is correct. First i have to understand the facts you are claiming, then i need to validate them.
my video does not say perspective causes sunsets, it say occultation does
Your video is a minor variation, and even says explicitly in the beginning of it that the perspective limit that the horizon is referred to as by other flat earthers is not incorrect - just incomplete.
If i was the one "learning" i wouldn't debate the host with repeated parrotings, like you are.
I know this is difficult for you. I am not trying to make it hard, and i’m not parroting. I am certainly not debating, because that is a stupid game for morons. I am just trying to understand your perspective and validate it. If you were correct, and i was incorrect - i would want to know it! Hopefully you feel the same way in the reverse case too!
im super cool
Super cool people don’t have caps lock attacks, and don’t mindlessly/reflexively attack the person they are speaking to because they don’t like what they have to say. Ad hominem is the last resort of the intellectually feeble. They attack the thinker out of desperation because they lack the competency to attack the thought.
Stay cool, attack the thought!
YOU HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THAT YOURE WRONG
Of course! That’s why i am (trying to anyway) discussing with you! If i am wrong, i should like to know it and to know how i can validate it for myself! How about you?
A TACTIC FROM DISINFO TROLLS LIKE YOURSELF
You are the (only!) one who is childishly insulting... Speaking of “disinfo tactics” and the actions of trolls.
Try to stay on topic. Address content, not the speaker!
ANOTHER WALL OF WRONG, FROM THE TROLL DESPERATE 4 Attention not wasting my time dealing with your crazy
That’s too bad, i guess you can’t keep control of your emotions well enough to even consider having a conversation about how you might be incorrect or defend your views. I hope you cool off, regain composure/capacity, and try again one day!
I’m no troll, and i don’t seek attention. I seek truth and rational discourse. Your emotion is preventing both rationality and discourse, sadly :( You can’t learn or share your learning with others as long as you flip out like this whenever there is a disagreement/differing view.
iM NOT SAYING "PERSCPECTIVE" CAUSE SUNSETS
The video you shared does. Anyway, as i said - you are saying something a little different which i stated (my understanding/interpretation of) clearly in the last comment. Did you see it? Responding to it may help me to understand, and you to explain now and in the future, your position.
STOP PUTTING YOUR STUPID IN MY MOUTH
I’m not intending to do that. As i said, i earnestly receive and interpret what you say and share that with you so that you can correct it if needed. Why not just correct it, instead of mindless emotional tirade that serves no one, explains/clarifies nothing, and makes you stressed?!
YOU ARE A BLACK HOLE OF ERROR
Perhaps, but if this is so - i should like to know how i can determine/validate that for myself and do better! If you were, in fact, the black hole of error - wouldn’t you want the same?!
FOR IDIOTS LIKE YOURSELF
For idiots and geniuses alike. All humans require repetition to effectively communicate and learn. There is no shame in admitting that reality.
WHERE'S THE POST THAT MY GOAL IS TRYING TO CONVINCE IDIOTS OF A THING
Who said you were?
YOU WILL DIE AN IDIOT - 100% POSITIVE.
Again, try to stay cool. You are letting your emotions get the better of you, and misconstruing attacks on/criticism of your views as criticisms of yourself - necessitating/justifying this embarrassing attack in your mind.
Such emotion only serves to make communication and learning (in either direction) impossible. Stay frosty, brother or sister! If you don’t master your emotions, you will continue to be their slave :(
YOU ARE COMPARING ONE DEPTH PERCEPTION TO A SECOND EXAMPLE OF DEPTH PERCEPION
There is only the one - actual depth perception. It comes from having two vantage points a known distance apart from one another and comparing the different images. The brain has tricks to approximate such things when that data is not available - the way we can “see/perceive” three dimensions when looking at a two dimensional image, or blocking one eye - but this isn’t real depth perception - it’s an estimation based on light/shadow and other things.
aS TO WHY THERE IS NO NOTIBLE PARRALAX IN THE STARS IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PERCIEVABLE DEPTH
Stars (of which planets are one type - the “wandering” kind) DO have noticeable parallax which is how determinations of their depth are calculated. The planets have parallax from two observers spread out on the world, and stars have parallax over the course of the year.
In any case, this is all moot because we are in agreement. When looking at a star or planet with your eyes you do not perceive depth (because they are too far away, and our eyes are too close together).
THR APPERENT SIZE OF AN OBJCT MAY DISSAPPEAR TO YOUR EYES BECAUSE OF INBILTY TO FOCUS ON IT
That’s true! That’s because of the size of the object and the receptor density, just as i explained! You don’t seem to understand what the diffraction limit / angular resolution limit is or what causes it. I can help if you let me!
If the object is larger, or the receptor density is greater - you can resolve it - regardless of its distance to you (assuming of course, its light can reach you and is bright enough when it does!)
THERE ARE STILL 2 OTHER DIMENSIONS U CAN PERCIEVE, THOSE BEING LENGTH AND WIDTH
You are positively obsessed with “depth”. Depth is in no way required to see the angular size of objects distant or very close. Why on earth do you think it is?
Imagine a picture. A 2 dimensional picture. No depth, right? Now imagine, in that same picture, you are looking at a car and a bus that are in the far distance one driving in front of the other - perhaps a view from a mountain - which are both much further than the distance to the visible horizon ( a few miles ). Do you really believe that you won’t be able to tell if the bus is larger than the car in the picture? The angular size that is apparent when viewing distant objects does not suddenly stop existing when you lack depth or when things are beyond the distance of the visible horizon. I cannot understand why you think they would, could, or ever do.
APPERENT SIZE ANF DIFFACTION LIMIT ARE NOT THE SAME THING
Noone said they were! The diffraction limit / angular resolution limit is the point at which you can no longer resolve an object of a given size - because it is too small (apparent size) for the receptor density in your eye. It (diffraction limit/angular resolution limit) is the distance limit where the view of distant objects shrink to a dot (then becoming a fuzzy dot) and then disappear.
THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT ENDING WOULD NOT CAUSE AN OBJECT FROM 10 MILES AWAT TO SHINK, IM NOT SAYING THAT, YOU ARE
You seem to be misunderstanding me. The diffraction limit is the distance at which objects of a particular size (dependent on your receptor density) can no longer be seen AFTER they have shrunk to a dot. The “cause”, if you like, of the apparent shrinking is perspective.
ONCE AN OBJECT IS ACTUALLY OCCULTED, THE ONLY WAY TO BRING IT BACK IS TO RAISE YOUR VIEWING HEIGHT
Right, because the light from the “occulted” object is no longer reaching the observer. What is blocking the light? Why can’t the object be zoomed back in upon, like you can with the boats which have disappeared due to being beyond the diffraction limit of the naked eye? If your view were correct, you ought to be able to do that - right?
You're discarding successive experiment, experiments which led to the discarding of the theory you are proposing.
Not to my knowledge, no. There are no experiments which contradict my, historical, view. If you know of one to discuss, please mention it!
We still use archimedes’ principle today!
You call are calling mass 'weight', and what everyone else calls weight, you call 'effective weight' - the terminology doesn't change what you are talking about.
It seems that way at first glance, and is often taught that way - but it is incorrect. Certainly there are some conceptual parallels though.
Mass, like gravitation, is entirely fictional. It does not exist outside of equation and does not refer to any quantity of matter. The mass of an object does not refer to the matter - however weight does. Mass is simply mass - a calculated fiction with no reality. Weight, on the other hand, is a property of the matter itself.
It is NOT coincidence that when combined they return to the real and measured weight they began as.
Effective weight is the measured weight - which includes many sources of variance chief among them being buoyancy.
The concept of Mass is ancient,
The concept of matter is ancient. Mass is attributed to newton. Who do you think spoke of mass prior to the concept of gravitation existing to imbue it, magically, with weight?
This concept is also ancient, also dating to Grecian times.
Again, this is not exactly right - though the word gravity (not gravitation) did exist and was used by epicurus. He is who newton credits with the philosophically unsound (i.e. unscientific) concept of gravitation which newton invoked. It was stupid (and unscientific) then to assume that there must be an intrinsic magic that attracts all matter to all other matter, and it is stupid now for the same reasons. At least newton fully understood that when he invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem.
I suspect you don't know the buoyant force is measurable
That’s a silly thing to suspect. Real things are all measurable!
That is, the effect of buoyancy in air, due to its density (which is also measurable) is some 3 or 4 decimal places smaller than the measured effects of gravity
If true, that is interesting. However it doesn’t change much even if it were,
Minuscule attraction between some types of matter does not demonstrate the existence of the fictional entity contrived to explain it. It just isn’t how science works. If you want to prove that gravitation is real, and the cause of weight - you need to demonstrate that gravitation is a real entity in the first order (no - minuscule attraction between some types of matter is not that, that is merely attraction) and then experimentally validate the hypothesis that it is responsible for causing weight by manipulating it. Newton didn’t bother to even try to do any of that - why di you think that is? He famously didn’t so much as offer a hypothesis because he recognized and accepted that it could not be done.
In short, it hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.
You aren’t exactly understanding the “grift”. There is no mass to measure. There is no gravitation to measure. There is ONLY weight. Of course mass and gravitation equal the weight we measure - we ensure/define that they do.
It isn’t so much an issue or right and wrong, or true or false. It is an issue of real (empirical) or fictional (unemperical).
Again, the math doesn't pretend to describe the realities of how nature works, and assuming math describes realities will get you lost very fast.
That’s true, and a big part of my point. Mass and gravitation has been “sold” as real through the usefulness of such equations. I agree that a grave error has been made in looking for reality inside equation (it’s out here!), and get’s you lost very fast. The quantumnists are some of the biggest offenders, and people, in general, struggle with (and are encouraged to struggle/avoid) the difference between useful and correct.
It was also refreshing to hear your, correct, description of mathematics. Math worship is a scourge and i encounter it a lot!
Something isn't right about how this is worded - as if you assume that science is something that is 'practiced' by practicians
That is a part of my point, however science - especially today - does have a rigorous definition that outlines the something that is practiced (what we call the scientific method).
Even in the early formative baconian method, not much has changed. People who adhere to that method to understand nature are scientists and practicing science - those who do not aren’t.
It is fundamentally unreasonable to expect newton to “practice science” the way modern scientists did after him - however he certainly did do a lot of good empirical science - but the invocation of gravitation is not among that.
Science has never historically been done by 'scientists' as a profession.
That doesn’t bother me in the slightest! In my view, anyone who adheres to the scientific/baconian method is practicing science and is a scientist. Anyone who doesn’t - isn’t one even if they are a salaried/employed scientist!
but his enormous contributions are certainly worthy of note,
Completely agreed! I like newton, the arrogant agelastic prick.
from calculus,
Mathematics - essentially gravitation was invoked under his efforts as a mathematician - not an empirical physicist/scientist.
to contributions to flight,
I’m not aware of this. What are you talking about?
to cleaning up the known chronology, etc.
Scholar, this is probably the most appropriate term for newton. This is the first (second, technically) i’m hearing about any of that, but i am intrigued. In what way did he clean up the chronology and where/when did you hear about this?
Don’t forget optics!
Think I may have found the crux: The word 'gravitation' has a definition, and it doesn't agree with your usage.
We are not discussing a dictionary, and depending on source there are a great many definitions for “gravitation” available to choose from.
I think i have made it pretty explicit how i am using the word. That’s all we need for communication! If you don’t understand how i am defining gravity and gravitation in this conversation (or why!), please just ask!
There is no magic or anything spooky.
The “spooky” reference is something einstein said about quantum entanglement - it was an allusion. As for magic, yes gravitation is distinctly magical (i.e. contrived fiction and not science in any way). If it existed, it would be capable of routinely doing things impossible for all other known sources of energy. The ordering of the cosmos we observe - alone - is absolutely impossible with the law (invalid theory in actuality, called a law erroneously) of gravitation. Good thing it is magic ;)
Additionally, nitpicking, but gravity hasn't graduated to 'law' yet, mainly because of the error bounds of big G.
Interesting, as it has been taught as the law of gravitation for centuries... Perhaps it’s been recently demoted?
Gravitation can never be a law in my view. The phenomenon of falling already has a name - gravity. It is the law. Gravitation is the contrived fiction misrepresented as a theory to explain that phenomenon/law.
Scientific laws are only “what is”. They can never include cause - which is what theory is for. it should go without saying, but obviously the scientific law and theory cannot be the same.
The word's meaning is literally the phenomena.
Right! Gravity is a known phenomenon [i.e. law] which has existed for multiple millennia.
dodges that the term 'gravitation' doesn't refer to any theory
Not at all! I am acutely aware of that and making explicit mention of that. It is central to my criticism.
You may possibly have miscontrued the 'Theory of Gravitation'
In a scientific context, there is no “theory of gravitation”. Gravitation is billed as a law and sold/taught as a theory [explanation for law] when it isn’t one.
At best, gravitation was intended to be a placeholder for a real theory that would come one day, but if you understand it as newton did - you would know why that isn’t possible. Thus the mystery of why 0 progress has been made on understanding this magical pseudo-force over 3+ centuries and counting is solved. It doesn’t exist to discover or experimentally validate.
You yourself show signs of either being a shill or a bot.
All day, every day :(
I hope more and more as i “interact” with them, for their sake, that they are a bot.
They have extremely poor reading comprehension as well, which is another check in the bot column.
Malcolm X was a staged person that pushed focused anger in the black community and his death was staged to anger them, just like their other faked "heroes" or more properly CIA assets.
Interesting view. I don’t necessarily disagree, per se, but i do think if he was an asset he turned on them and was killed for doing so. Otherwise why not just stage/fake his death like they would, undoubtedly, with other retiring assets - especially if, as you say, his death was only to cause anger in black communities?
At the very least the fbi knew he was going to be killed and did nothing to prevent it.
Was he killed? Was that the end?
The evidence all points to yes, and his death was very public as far as murders go. However it is not impossible that it was faked... Do you have any evidence to support the idea that he lived on after being capped at point blank range with a sawed off shotgun with dozens of witnesses? Or that the undercover (nypd i believe) officer in his entourage that held him as he died was lying?
Wouldn't you agree?
Absolutely! Viva la conspiracies.
So was the other person in the title screenshot (malcolm x)
One of them figured it out, left the black muslim scammer organization, spoke out against them and was killed for it.
The other one didn’t. The end.
nice wall of wrong u created
Well, you could (flippantly) say that about anything! Try not to let your emotion get the better of you. There is no shame in being wrong. It happens to us all the time.
When i tell you that your views are incorrect, I am not insulting you, belittling your intelligence, or intending any offense. You shouldn’t feel threatened or attacked! Discussion necessarily involves disagreement and we must become comfortable with that in order to effectively communicate and learn from one another.
Stay frosty brother or sister!
is an airplane 15 miles above you on the same plane as you
Planes (not airplanes!) are imaginary. If you mean the “plane” of your sight, yes - when you are looking at a plane (normal planes you are likely to see aren’t anywhere near this height) 15 miles above you then yes, it is in the same plane as you. Our vision is spherical, like the eye. I do not understand your fixation with 2d conceptual structures that don’t exist in reality (like declination and ascension).
i never said it was circular, circular is not even a dimension
I agree with the latter! As for the former, you seem to have forgotten what you said. You described moving an object, with respect to an observer, in the dimension of width. There are only three dimensions - they are arbitrary conventions. They are linear, not circular.
You (rhetorically) asked if moving the object in the dimension of width would change its distance (and hence its apparent size) and expected (incorrectly) the answer to be no. The ONLY way for the answer to be no, is for the dimension of width you described to be circular. That is the ONLY way for the object to move horizontally AND remain the same distance (and hence angular size) from the observer. As usual, please let me know if you disagree, or don’t understand what i’m saying!
stop using your bird skill to make up shit r i never said
Bird skill? What does that mean?
I am not making shit up that you never said, and i am not trying to misrepresent your position. I am earnestly interpreting what you say and conveying that interpretation as well as asking earnest questions about it. If my interpretation is incorrect (as it necessarily will be), correct it! And stay frosty! We are not arguing, and we are not debating, we are just having a discussion!
if you think th horizon is the limit of ALL sight, you would never be able to see the sun , cause itsa always further away than that distance, hence it is never perceived in 3d
The visible horizon line is the limit of ALL sight, but not because of its distance from you - it’s because of the stuff in the way (air mostly)! That’s why its distance changes with weather conditions! If you look slightly above that horizon line, you are looking through less air! Hence you can see farther. This is the same reason you can see farther from higher altitude.
cause itsa always further away than that distance, hence it is never perceived in 3d
I agree that the sun is (grossly) not perceived with the naked eye as being 3d, but not because it is beyond the varying distance to the visible horizon line (a few miles) - it’s because it is too far away for the observed location to vary as perceived from the left and right eyes at any instant.
“yes, apparent size change with perspective last forever?” Wrong – stars are only perceived in 2d
I agree with both statements! They are in no way conflicting or contradictory. 2D is all that is required to see differences in size caused by distance. Apparent size change always varies by distance to the observer, regardless of that distance. I have no idea why or how you think they wouldn’t/don’t.
assumption to do calculations are NOT PERCEPTION
Perception is also beyond sight - conception. The stars are perceived by astronomers (and most everyone else) as having depth [distance]. We are in agreement that, at any given instant, their depth cannot be discerned with the eyes and appear in 2D.
of course its only ever perceived in 2d, u assume the 3rd dimension and then tell yourself your not assuming anything
I do presume that the sky is real, as are the lights in it, and that the world/universe we inhabit is three dimensional - including very far away from us where our eyes can’t perceive depth. You don’t?
your the one making the positive claim they should – show me some video of the iss changing size as it crosses the sky and gets bigger as it goes overhead of you, waiting....
I didn’t make any clams about the iss, but as i said - there are people who can get you what you want. Tracking the iss with a telescope is very difficult, and takes a very expensive rig.
Go outside, and watch a plane as it flies away from you. It will change its apparent size as it does so. Or just continue to pretend i’m wrong and believe whatever you want - but then you accept that your view (perception) of the world is from belief instead of study/observation. I don’t recommend the latter.
The diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth. It happens with monocular vision” 14 wrong
You don’t seem to know what the term you are using means. The diffraction limit / angular resolution limit has to do with resolving objects at a distance - perception of depth is not involved.
“You seem to be confusing depth and size. “ 8 – projection, u do
Lol, i am the one saying they are separate and distinct. Apparent size exists and is perceived without any necessary perception of depth. I am not “projecting” my views, and if i were you would no longer confuse the two. If i am misrepresenting your view, it is only because i don’t understand it. Don’t get upset - just try again to explain!
Now close one eye, did depth disappear,
no!
Yes, though that isn’t our perception because the brain (and possibly eye as well) has many ways to estimate depth. The primary perception/experience of depth comes from parallax and requires two eyes. That’s why they don’t make 3D glasses for one eyed people. It isn’t possible to do, but if you were correct it would be! You honestly think a 3D monocle is possible? Please build one - earnestly, i mean it. I want to see it, and lots of people who have sight in only one eye would too!
The diffraction limit is because the reflected light that allows you to preserve thast dimension is no longer able to reach your eyes or eye.
This is wrong. Where did you pick this up? Diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth perception, but to resolving an object. If you can resolve an object then you can see it. If you can see it and it differs in appearance from the left and right eyes then you can see depth. If you can see it and its appearance does not discernibly differ from one eye to another, then you cannot see depth (though your brain/eye has other ways to estimate depth when it can’t see it).
u just cant handle the fact it ends at the horizon,
It would be very interesting if this were true. i could “handle” it just fine and would in fact be happy to learn it if it were true. However, as i said - the distance to the visible horizon varies with weather - whatever fixed limit exists in the eye would not... As eye spacing, ability to focus, and resolving ability/diffraction limit (chiefly governed by receptor density) varies from person to person this fixed limit would also vary (different people would be able to perceive depth up to differing distances) and yet the visible horizon is still the same exact distance from all observers... (this is the reverse of the previous statement).
cause denile is the basis for your space monkey religion (you can drop the stupid claim your a flat earthr, youre not fooling anyone)
Lol. Stay frosty! We are not enemies, and this is not an argument / mindless debate! This is a discussion! We can, and should!, disagree and be able to discuss/explore those disagreements without letting emotion get the better of us. In fact, we MUST if we ever want to learn from one another - which i very much do! Hopefully you are of a similar mind!
I never claimed to be a flat earther, and somewhat constantly deny/correct people when they make that mistaken assumption. I am a flat earth researcher and my perspective on the shape of the world is more accurately dubbed globe skepticism/denial. I share your distaste for the religion of scientism and am fully aware that “outer space” is religious fiction (and always was; the coimbra jesuits are responsible for its invention as far as i can trace back)
LooooooolL, your tears are delicious
You have been suffering/engaging too much with the flat earth psyop. It’s bad for you, and encourages the mindless and self defeating (false) enmity you are exhibiting. Shouldn’t we be working together to understand the world and share our particular views on it in order to learn from each other and to refine our own views? The psyop encourages “flat earthers” and “globers” to mindlessly bicker, condescend, and insult so that they never collaborate and so communication is impossible. Don’t fall for it! Stay frosty!
ok whats the refractive index for Air ... Hit me with your maths dude
Well now we’re getting somewhere! We went from “air doesn’t refract” to “ok, air refracts but it does’t refract much”. That’s progress as far as i’m concerned!
As for calculation and what the refractive index for air is - that is a bit more complicated. The refractive index changes with the airs pressure/concentration/density (which varies, typically, with altitude in a gradient) and with its contents. Air is not just full of gas - there are lots of other things commingling - especially as you get closer to the surface. We may want to put a pin in this sub-discussion and circle back to it later.
citation needed
I typically don’t bother. I’m not writing a research paper - i’m just having a discussion. Believe whatever you want, but when you choose NOT to research a claim don’t delude yourself into thinking you have validated or refuted it as a result! In any case, it isn’t a view i agree with so discussing it further seems moot.
wrong – thy make me vomit with disgust on being so ignorant of reality
Have pity and empathy [heart]. We were most all “globers” once, and we are most all ignorant of reality (and perhaps worse - just plain wrong about what we deludedly think we are NOT ignorant of).
There are no “flatties” or “globetards”. There is no “flat earth theory” or “globe earth theory”. There is no war between them. That’s all flat earth psyop propaganda. There are only people, with varying views on reality which are generally and historically speaking all incorrect. We should be collaborating together to determine the objective reality as best we can - not dividing into balkanized camps. our enemies prefer us divided because it is easier to conquer us that way ;)
ok if u really do ,
I really and truly do. And i am not afraid or ashamed to be wrong or admit that i am/was. None of us should be. We all have tremendous experience with being stupid and wrong, and despite our best efforts we will in the future too. The real tragedy is never recognizing how/why/that we were stupid and wrong, and it is frightfully easy to do.
than air doesnt cause ANY noticeable refraction, EVER.
I disagree, and my position is that that noticeable (observable) refraction is the cause of the optical illusion of setting/rising, the apparent lowering of the visible horizon from altitude, and many other noticeable things.
ALSO YOUR DEPTH Perception ENDs AT THE DIFFRACTION LiMIT , AKA THE HORIZOn
Your (clear) SIGHT ends at the diffraction limit. depth perception likely quits long before that depending on object size and distance.
The visible horizon isn’t exactly the diffraction limit - and the diffraction limit depends on the size of the object as well as the receptor density in the eye. Things that are large enough can be seen/resolved from the distance of the visible horizon (and far beyond those measly few miles). If the horizon were the diffraction limit - this would not be possible. Also, things wouldn’t set or rise into/out of it - they would shrink to points and then disappear. Small boats approaching the horizon are a good example of this. They do shrink to dots and disappear as they approach the diffraction limit and go beyond it. But they do that long before they reach the visible horizon. That is the reason that they can be zoomed in upon and resolved again. This is distinctly different than objects that have gone “over the horizon” (aka “set”). The obscured parts of the objects set cannot be resolved no matter what magnification is used. If your view were correct, they could be. Why do you think they can’t?
u dont need 2 eyes to perceive depth
True. You can (and do) perceive depth from 2D images. But real/actual depth perception comes from parallax - the other kinds are a trick/processing technique of the mind (there are speculations on emission from the eye as well, which would potentially allow for the monocular 3D you believe exists - but perhaps wed better leave such speculative tangents aside for now)
no you demonstrated how you dont get it and you've never encountered it before
I’m not “new on the block”, i’ve encountered the claim that perspective is responsible for sunset many times before - it is very common. If i still don’t get it, help me to! I am starting to think that you may not “get it”, or perhaps just lack the ability to convey it to me. You are saying (my interpretation, not an intentional misrepresentation - don’t get mad!) that the things we see that are close to us (and have perceivable depth) are blocking the view of things that are too far away to perceive depth even though they are not in line with/obstructing one another. I am saying that doesn’t make sense, and isn’t consistent with what we see or well established optical laws. I am also saying you can’t demonstrate that this phenomena exists by scale demonstration (unlike my view, which can). Please correct me if i am wrong!
and you can zoom in on what you thought was the horizon and see a boat is still there
Not if it has gone over the horizon, no. When the ship (or sun, or anything else that sets) is missing its bottom due to setting - it cannot be restored through magnification. this is a common popularized mistake propagated by the flat earth psyop. It is trivial to refute and observe that this is untrue, so people who fall for this claim and repeat it are made to seem uninformed/ignorant/stupid as a result (by design).
thats not what i need
It’s what we all need friend. Repetition is necessary for effective communication. Language is imprecise, interpretation is subjective, and even if they weren’t - we aren’t perfect.
why does the item fall downwards and not in any other direction?
Because that is the direction of its lowest energy state aka “rest”. Things tend towards rest/equilibrium. It’s also got a lot of matter above it pushing down; it’s the easiest way / path of least resistance for it to fall down.
I could easily argue that it is “blindingly retarded” to expect that it ought to fall in any other direction than the opposite of the one you lifted it. Or that “falling” ever could happen in any other direction than down, just as lifting could ever be in any other direction than “up”. It is arguably equally “blindingly retarded” to assume that air could or should support the weight of a physical object of significantly greater density that you lifted and released.
if they only dont fall because the air cant support them then why do things feel heavy?
You may have misunderstood me. Things do fall because the air can’t support their weight, and because they were lifted and released. Things feel heavy because they are made of matter, and matter has weight. It is an intrinsic property of all matter, and because of the interplay between the weight of the object and the media it displaces it exhibits a force that totals downwards.
did you think about this for longer than it took you to type?
I dare say i have thought about it, discussed it, and researched it far more than you have or ever will!
gravitational pull, while we dont quite understand the specifics of how it works, is a well understood fundemental force of reality, it is a key part of what holds literally everything together.
The greeks believed the same thing about zeus. You are describing belief in your mythology - not science. Gravitational pull does not make sense (it is intractable), is not consistent with reality, and is fundamentally unscientific and fictional. I know what i am saying sounds wild, because it is wild.
I recognize the prominent role it plays in the modern creation mythology (and dogma) of scientism. That changes nothing.
we dont know why that happens, but we know the exact way that it happens,
These are contradictory statements. We don’t know why that happens, which is ALSO the same as not knowing the exact way that it happens. You believe it is the cause of observable and well established phenomena, but that’s only because of rote under the guise of education from childhood.
and not knowing something does not proove that it isnt real.
No, but until something is discovered it is NOT discovered. Gravitation is NOT discovered. It was simply made up and weaseled its way into textbooks. No science was involved. In science, things are not real until they are proven to be. We can measure weight. We can measure the speed things fall. We can measure the minuscule attraction between certain types of matter. We cannot measure “gravitational pull”, which makes it unemperical aka unscientific. Things we cannot measure do not belong in science. Belief does not belong in science.
there is far more proof to gravitational force just existing than there is for whatever completely braindead alternative you have come up with.
So we are taught, and required to faithfully repeat. However in reality, it isn’t true. What we have is belief. In science, proof only comes from rigorous empiricism (scientific law - the “what”) and rigorous experiment (scientific theory - the “why/how”). Gravitational force has neither, and never has. Newton understood that it never could. This fact, and the meaning of it, is lost on most modern students :(
“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.
Are perceptions bias?
Generally, yes. Perceptions are subjective, and subjectivity is bias. Science is the attempt to suppress that inherent human quality and study objectively.
Also, please don't misunderstand, I agree with science
Likewise, i also appreciate and value science as a method of learning about the world and gaining new understanding and capacity/ability.
I believe that science done properly should be believed
Science should NEVER be believed. Belief has no place in science whatsoever - that’s what religion is for. Belief is the enemy of knowledge and objective study of any kind.
One of the best things about science is that it requires no (and is, in fact, significantly hindered by) belief!
and is oftentimes difficult to differentiate
If you don’t know what science is, you can never differentiate between it and pseudoscience/religion/mythology presented under its guise. This is the purpose of the ubiquitous scientific illiteracy we suffer from.
That’s true, things that are heavier than the media they displace fall. That’s the law of gravity! In its simplest form, it is the statement that “what goes up, must come down.
But the commenter i was responding to wasn’t talking about gravity, they were talking about gravitation the magical/mysterious/unknown postulated pseudoforce believed to cause that law. The former is, as you say, real. The latter is not.
Things fall merely because they were lifted and with the exact same energy used to lift them. They fall because the air beneath them cannot support their weight. Things do NOT fall because there is a magical “force” pulling them down. That is a stupid, unscientific, and fictional idea, as it was from its original inception.
science cannot be proved
This is not exactly right. It is true that proof, outside of mathematics, is subjective, provisional, and historically doomed to refutation - but the scientific method is ALL about proving to the best of our abilities.
Experiment is how we prove that our scientific understandings for the cause of phenomena are correct. It isn’t truth, but it is the best we’ve got - and the closest thing (in my estimation) to proof that exists.
Sadly the vast majority of people are scientifically illiterate due to poor education, and so do not actually know what an experiment is or how the scientific method works or why. To make matters worse, they learn and use incorrect colloquial definitions for the vernacular (experiment, theory, hypothesis, etc.) so they can’t even have a discussion, let alone practice or study science - even if they wanted to :(
Assumption has no place in science whatsoever outside of hypothesis generation - which exists only for experimental validation/refutation (ideally). Science has no place for belief/assumption (it’s called bias, and is a four letter word).
This tries to reinvent the wheel
Quite the opposite - it returns to it! It doesn’t reinvent anything, it discards junk and reverts to what was already known, experimentally provable, science for millennia prior to newtons popularized blunder.
which is why a different intrinsic property was proposed, Mass, and weight is now defined as the product of both mass and the local gravitational acceleration.
That’s incorrect, historically. Newton did not invent mass and gravitational attraction because measured weight varied anywhere on earth. This is all retroactively backfilled nonsense/mythology.
Weight varies minisculely for a plethora of known and experimentally validated reasons. Fictional gravitation is not one of those, and is not necessary or real.
Effective weight (what we typically measure - weight with the buoyant force included) is what is changing - intrinsic weight remains the same. Both mass and gravitation are entirely fictional, and exist only in equation. It is NOT coincidence that they annihilate one another and return to the real measured weight they began as.
The problem is that weight doesn't change in vacuum (which btw is how gravity is measured - precisely timed falling mirrors in a vaccum chamber), and that buoyant forces can be measured separately from gravitational forces.
Intrinsic weight - no, hardly at all (nuclear processes and atomic/molecular restructuring can, again minisculely, change it slightly). The rate at which things fall changes (this has to do with effective weight) - most significantly - with the media they displace/travel theough, but temperature, charge, and all sorts of other things can effect it too - again - extremely minisculely.
This part wasn't substance, but it is still wrong
Newton was not practicing science when he introduced the fiction of gravitation to solve an astronomical math problem. He was an alchemist and magician, and much more of a scholar and mathematician than he ever was a scientist. The myth that he is some saint of scientism is just idolatry.
but was a heretic in his time.
Did someone say he wasn’t?
Are you saying the “phantom time hypothesis” comes from newton originally? This sounds like spurious revisionism... But i am intruiged.
'Gravity' as a term literally is defined by phenomenological effects
That’s right! Gravity is a natural/scientific law [i.e. phenomenon] which is multiple millennia old.
The 'cause' behind these effects
Is fully known and understood, in my view. Since newton added the contrived unscientific fiction of “gravitation” into the mix, it’s been a “mystery” for 3+ centuries. We have made no progress on understanding it whatsoever. I know why. It [gravitation] isn’t real, and it never was.
People write huge dissertations on what the causes might be, but nobody really knows.
Many, if not most, natural laws are this way. They are, and we deal with them. They are the empirical bedrock of science.
Falling objects literally demonstrate the PHENOMENA of gravity or gravitation
Ah, but there’s the rub. They aren’t the same and in science cannot be the same. A natural/scientific law (the phenomenon; gravity) can never be the same as the scientific theory (the experimentally verified cause of the phenomenon; what gravitation is billed as but in no way is) to explain it. That would be circular logic at best, un/anti-scientific, and just plain - to use your parlance - retarded.
And yes, gravity has been indeed measured, observed, and understood for many centuries, though the causes are not.
Yes, gravity has been measured - that’s how scientific laws come to be - measurement. It is thousands of years old.
Gravitation is essentially a pseudoscientific hoax/fraud, and is merely a few centuries old. It’s junk, and wrong. Every physicist worth their salt since newton has loathed him for introducing magic into physics. “Spooky action at a distance” - in newton’s own words, “philosophically unsound” nonsense.
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!
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...
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?
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.
As i’ve explained several times now (effective communication takes repetition!), apparent size is caused by perspective.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 :(
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!