Originally posted by twhiteheadI can't articulate the thing you're arguing against.
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.
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 FreakyKBHI had to help you out.
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!
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.
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHVery 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.
Essentially, the distance reduces the rays into one angle.
.
Originally posted by humyYou just figured that out?🙂
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.
Originally posted by humyModel it and you'll see which of the two of us is confused.
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.
8 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI 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?
Model it
Originally posted by @humyWhere's your model?
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?
Originally posted by @freakykbhthat is my model; I just said it.
Where's your model?
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 @humyYou're an alleged scientist, but you don't understand what a model is to prove your point?
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.
?
Huh.
1 edit
Originally posted by @humyHe is doing his usual MO, obfuscation even though he knows the angles full well.
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 @twhiteheadI think his game is playing devils advocate just for fun, see how ticked off people get.
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 @sonhouseNo, playing the fool and playing devils advocate are NOT the same thing. The devil is not stupid, and his advocate isn't either.
I think his game is playing devils advocate just for fun, see how ticked off people get.
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 @twhiteheadAnd yet you do it on the regular.
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.
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?