Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Modeling it proves mine emphatically.

You can't even articulate your argument let alone prove it.

Have you heard of sunspots before?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

Their existence disproves your claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You can't even articulate your argument let alone prove it.

Have you heard of sunspots before?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

Their existence disproves your claim.

I can't articulate the thing you're arguing against.
How dafuk is that even possible?
Are you just correctly guessing what I'm saying?
You're like a super genius!

How do you figure sunspots prove the point that I'm not articulating but you are arguing against, false?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I can't articulate the thing you're arguing against. How dafuk is that even possible?

I had to help you out.

Are you just correctly guessing what I'm saying?
You're like a super genius!
Yes.

How do you figure sunspots prove the point that I'm not articulating but you are arguing against, false?
To see something, you need light at different angles. Its just a fact. So either the light is at different angles, or we cannot see them. But we see them. QED.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Essentially, the distance reduces the rays into one angle.
.

Very clearly false. If that was true, we would see the sun in the sky as a single 1-dimensional point of light i.e. with no apparent diameter and there wouldn't ever be any such thing as observation of a partial solar eclipse. You are extremely confused about many things.

Originally posted by humy
Very clearly false. If that was true, we would see the sun in the sky as a single point of light i.e. with no apparent diameter and there wouldn't ever be any such thing as observation of a partial solar eclipse. You are extremely confused about many things.

You just figured that out?🙂

Originally posted by humy
Very clearly false. If that was true, we would see the sun in the sky as a single 1-dimensional point of light i.e. with no apparent diameter and there wouldn't ever be any such thing as observation of a partial solar eclipse. You are extremely confused about many things.

Model it and you'll see which of the two of us is confused.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Model it

I have; an extremely trivial task. You are the one who is confused. Do you not understand that the sun in the sky apparently has a non-zero diameter? Or do you not understand that, providing your eyes are perfectly focused and have no defect, the only way the sun (or any other object) can apparently have a non-zero diameter is if rays of light from it enter your eyes at slightly different directions i.e. not perfectly parallel thus logically implying they aren't perfectly parallel prior to them reaching your eyes? Which of those two simple concepts confuses you?

Originally posted by @humy
I have; an extremely trivial task. You are the one who is confused. Do you not understand that the sun in the sky apparently has a non-zero diameter? Or do you not understand that, providing your eyes are perfectly focused and have no defect, the only way the sun (or any other object) can apparently have a non-zero diameter is if rays of light from it enter y ...[text shortened]... ctly parallel prior to them reaching your eyes? Which of those two simple concepts confuses you?

Where's your model?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Where's your model?

that is my model; I just said it.
Which part of that are your confused by?
Are you confused by;

1, the sun has an apparent non-zero diameter.

or

2, light must be shining from differing directions to give an object an apparent non-zero diameter.

?

Originally posted by @humy
that is my model; I just said it.
Which part of that are your confused by?
Are you confused by;

1, the sun has an apparent non-zero diameter.

or

2, light must be shining from differing directions to give an object an apparent non-zero diameter.

?

You're an alleged scientist, but you don't understand what a model is to prove your point?
Huh.

Originally posted by @humy
that is my model; I just said it.
Which part of that are your confused by?
Are you confused by;

1, the sun has an apparent non-zero diameter.

or

2, light must be shining from differing directions to give an object an apparent non-zero diameter.

?

He is doing his usual MO, obfuscation even though he knows the angles full well.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
He is doing his usual MO, obfuscation even though he knows the angles full well.

Its not 'obfuscation', its 'act like a fool till everyone gives up on you'. The whole 'last word' thing even if its a stupid word seems to be important to him.

Originally posted by @twhitehead
Its not 'obfuscation', its 'act like a fool till everyone gives up on you'. The whole 'last word' thing even if its a stupid word seems to be important to him.

I think his game is playing devils advocate just for fun, see how ticked off people get.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I think his game is playing devils advocate just for fun, see how ticked off people get.

No, playing the fool and playing devils advocate are NOT the same thing. The devil is not stupid, and his advocate isn't either.
I agree he's probably mostly trolling, although I have never quite understood what joy people get from making fools of themselves.

Originally posted by @twhitehead
No, playing the fool and playing devils advocate are NOT the same thing. The devil is not stupid, and his advocate isn't either.
I agree he's probably mostly trolling, although I have never quite understood what joy people get from making fools of themselves.

And yet you do it on the regular.
This is exceedingly simple stuff.
And you're a programmer, too, if you're to be believed.
Surely you have access to modeling software which would allow you to see the effects of a light source on objects from varying distances.

Right?