|
|
07-05-2016, 11:31 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Relativists claim that clocks run slower because time dilates.
|
Again, they do NOT say this. If they DID say this, then the moron you quote would be right: It would be a tautology; i.e., saying clocks run slower because they run slower!
But this idiot has erected a strawman of the scientific position — like Daddy Dumbass insisting scientists say images are carried on “wings of light” when scientists say nothing of the kind.
The fact that clocks (and all physical processes) run slower — i.e., time dilates — is an inevitable consequence of the key postulate of special relativity: that the speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames. So the correct scientific position, unlike the one enunciated by the dipshit you quoted, is: time dilates as an inevitable consequence of the fact that the speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames.
This is easily demonstrated here with a light clock.
I suggest you put down the hooch and rub your sodden snout in the above-linked page pronto!
|
07-05-2016, 11:40 PM
|
|
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
What is the image of the nebula I posted above? Is it an image or not?
|
It is an image from light. But that does not prove what you think it does.
|
OK, I'll help you. It's an infrared image.
|
I don't see a conflict although I know it appears that way to you.
|
So do we get infrared images in real time or not? Do we get infrared images at all?
|
Infrared images would work the same way as regular cameras, only the infrared camera would be using a different wavelength to form an image.
|
So do we get infrared, microwave, X-ray, ultraviolet, radio images in real time or not? You still haven't answered the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
Peacegirl, define field of view.
|
Photography
In photography, the field of view is that part of the world that is visible through the camera at a particular position and orientation in space; objects outside the FOV when the picture is taken are not recorded in the photograph. It is most often expressed as the angular size of the view cone, as an angle of view. For normal lens, field of view can be calculated FOV = 2 arctan(SensorSize/2f), where f is focal length.
Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Again, you've been using the term in a completely different way. When something moves away from the observer in a radial direction it doesn't leave the field of view. When something is "too far away to be seen" that doesn't mean it's outside of the field of view.
|
07-05-2016, 11:41 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: no understanding
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The only way he could see the lamp with a telescope is if the lamp was actually in his optical range. How can it be when it's a mile away?
|
So the maximum range of all telescopes is now one mile?
|
No, it's how large the object is in relation to the observer. A small object like a lamp would not show up on film or telescope (even when we know telescopes collect light) because it does not show up in any of these instrument's field of view.
|
Do you understand that 'field of view' has nothing to do with 'optical range'? And if the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) can photograph the US flag from 31 miles, why couldn't a telescope see the lamp from one mile?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you call me names Spacemonkey, just be aware that I will not answer you again for a long time.
|
Does that mean you will answer my questions when I don't call you names? Let's test that theory. I am going to post some questions, and I promise not to call you any names until the next time you deliberately evade a direct and relevant question. Fair enough? I'll even make them simple Y/N questions, so this should only take you a few seconds of effort. Here we go...
You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
Are they traveling photons?
Did they come from the Sun?
Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?
Did they travel at the speed of light?
Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
07-05-2016, 11:43 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
Peacegirl, define field of view.
|
Photography
In photography, the field of view is that part of the world that is visible through the camera at a particular position and orientation in space; objects outside the FOV when the picture is taken are not recorded in the photograph. It is most often expressed as the angular size of the view cone, as an angle of view. For normal lens, field of view can be calculated FOV = 2 arctan(SensorSize/2f), where f is focal length.
Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
What do you think this means?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
07-05-2016, 11:46 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Relativists claim that clocks run slower because time dilates.
|
Again, they do NOT say this. If they DID say this, then the moron you quote would be right: It would be a tautology; i.e., saying clocks run slower because they run slower!
But this idiot has erected a strawman of the scientific position — like Daddy Dumbass insisting scientists say images are carried on “wings of light” when scientists say nothing of the kind.
The fact that clocks (and all physical processes) run slower — i.e., time dilates — is an inevitable consequence of the key postulate of special relativity: that the speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames. So the correct scientific position, unlike the one enunciated by the dipshit you quoted, is: time dilates as an inevitable consequence of the fact that the speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames.
This is easily demonstrated here with a light clock.
I suggest you put down the hooch and rub your sodden snout in the above-linked page pronto!
|
You're not a scientist David, so stop pretending. After all, you believe in free will. I already told you (are you that thick headed?) that if you keep insulting my father, I will not respond to your post. Bye bye.
|
07-05-2016, 11:47 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
Peacegirl, define field of view.
|
Photography
In photography, the field of view is that part of the world that is visible through the camera at a particular position and orientation in space; objects outside the FOV when the picture is taken are not recorded in the photograph. It is most often expressed as the angular size of the view cone, as an angle of view. For normal lens, field of view can be calculated FOV = 2 arctan(SensorSize/2f), where f is focal length.
Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
That's for photography, are you saying it's the same for telescopes and the eyes? What it comes down to is that the field of view is what can be seen, and if it's out of our field of view, then we can't see it. You keep asking, if it's out of our field of view, why can't we see it, and you keep claiming that science and optics claims that we can see what we can't see. Science and optics don't claim that, that is just your imagination running wild and prompting you to say stupid shit. Science and optics states that if an object is out of our field of view, then we can't see it, OK, they don't claim otherwise, only you are doing that. If an object is in our field of view when the light leaves that object, we will continue to be able to see it till the last photon of light gets to us. That is what science and optics says and that is what has been observed, but you are confusing it into saying that we can see an object that we can't see.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-05-2016, 11:48 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
What is the image of the nebula I posted above? Is it an image or not?
|
It is an image from light. But that does not prove what you think it does.
|
OK, I'll help you. It's an infrared image.
|
I don't see a conflict although I know it appears that way to you.
|
So do we get infrared images in real time or not? Do we get infrared images at all?
|
Infrared images would work the same way as regular cameras, only the infrared camera would be using a different wavelength to form an image.
|
So do we get infrared, microwave, X-ray, ultraviolet, radio images in real time or not? You still haven't answered the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
Peacegirl, define field of view.
|
Photography
In photography, the field of view is that part of the world that is visible through the camera at a particular position and orientation in space; objects outside the FOV when the picture is taken are not recorded in the photograph. It is most often expressed as the angular size of the view cone, as an angle of view. For normal lens, field of view can be calculated FOV = 2 arctan(SensorSize/2f), where f is focal length.
Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Again, you've been using the term in a completely different way. When something moves away from the observer in a radial direction it doesn't leave the field of view. When something is "too far away to be seen" that doesn't mean it's outside of the field of view.
|
The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV) is the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.
|
07-05-2016, 11:49 PM
|
|
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I know what you're getting at. All light travels at the same speed, but this doesn't explain how the eyes work in relation to the visible spectrum.
|
That wasn't the question. If we have a camera that records infrared light, ultraviolet light, X-rays, microwaves or radio waves, do we get that image in real time or not?
|
No, we don't get an image because there's no image to get.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
What is the image of the nebula I posted above? Is it an image or not?
|
It is an image from light. But that does not prove what you think it does.
|
OK, I'll help you. It's an infrared image.
|
I don't see a conflict although I know it appears that way to you.
|
So do we get infrared images in real time or not? Do we get infrared images at all?
|
Infrared images would work the same way as regular cameras, only the infrared camera would be using a different wavelength to form an image.
|
|
07-05-2016, 11:54 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
On Earth light travels so fast that there isn't enough time to notice this effect, but for objects in space the effect is noticeable. A moon of Jupiter will disappear behind the planet and reappear, but we will not observe the event till the light from the moon has had time to travel to the Earth. This has been observed and verified for hundreds of years and there is no doubt about the truth of these observations. Your only objection is that they disprove Lessans claims.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-05-2016, 11:57 PM
|
|
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV) is the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.
|
That doesn't mean what you think it means. Read the next sentence. Do you know by now what a solid angle is?
|
07-06-2016, 12:03 AM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Relativists claim that clocks run slower because time dilates.
|
Again, they do NOT say this. If they DID say this, then the moron you quote would be right: It would be a tautology; i.e., saying clocks run slower because they run slower!
But this idiot has erected a strawman of the scientific position — like Daddy Dumbass insisting scientists say images are carried on “wings of light” when scientists say nothing of the kind.
The fact that clocks (and all physical processes) run slower — i.e., time dilates — is an inevitable consequence of the key postulate of special relativity: that the speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames. So the correct scientific position, unlike the one enunciated by the dipshit you quoted, is: time dilates as an inevitable consequence of the fact that the speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames.
This is easily demonstrated here with a light clock.
I suggest you put down the hooch and rub your sodden snout in the above-linked page pronto!
|
You're not a scientist David, so stop pretending. After all, you believe in free will. I already told you (are you that thick headed?) that if you keep insulting my father, I will not respond to your post. Bye bye.
|
Your father was a moron, just like the guy you quoted.
Why don't you read the page I linked? Too drunk?
|
07-06-2016, 12:10 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Do you know by now what a solid angle is?
|
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
07-06-2016, 12:23 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
I suggest you put down the hooch and rub your sodden snout in the above-linked page pronto!
|
Hey! I'm right here ya know, and a little (or a lot of) wine makes it a lot easier to read Peacegirl's drivel. I would think that some Hooch would make it easier for her to write that stuff as well, I don't think I'd want to read what she might write sober. I know that I wouldn't want to try to read it sober, the wine helps me to tolerate her whine.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-06-2016, 11:45 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV) is the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.
|
That doesn't mean what you think it means. Read the next sentence. Do you know by now what a solid angle is?
|
No, so explain how "solid angle" changes the meaning.
|
07-06-2016, 11:48 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Relativists claim that clocks run slower because time dilates.
|
Again, they do NOT say this. If they DID say this, then the moron you quote would be right: It would be a tautology; i.e., saying clocks run slower because they run slower!
But this idiot has erected a strawman of the scientific position — like Daddy Dumbass insisting scientists say images are carried on “wings of light” when scientists say nothing of the kind.
The fact that clocks (and all physical processes) run slower — i.e., time dilates — is an inevitable consequence of the key postulate of special relativity: that the speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames. So the correct scientific position, unlike the one enunciated by the dipshit you quoted, is: time dilates as an inevitable consequence of the fact that the speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames.
This is easily demonstrated here with a light clock.
I suggest you put down the hooch and rub your sodden snout in the above-linked page pronto!
|
You're not a scientist David, so stop pretending. After all, you believe in free will. I already told you (are you that thick headed?) that if you keep insulting my father, I will not respond to your post. Bye bye.
|
Your father was a moron, just like the guy you quoted.
Why don't you read the page I linked? Too drunk?
|
This guy is much smarter than you are. You're a real crackpot. I'm not answering any more of your posts today.
A Crackpot Is a Crackpot
Crackpottery in High Places is the Most Dangerous form of Crackpottery
Readers should feel free to suggest more names to include in my list of notorious time travel crackpots. Please use the email address at the bottom of the page. This is important because the correctness of humanity's fundamental understanding of nature is crucial to further progress. Crackpottery in high places is the most dangerous form of crackpotteryl. It condemns generations of young people to believe in lies and, as a result, scientific progress suffers. In fact, this whole motion in spacetime nonsense has already cost humanity close to a century of wasted time and wasted minds. In my opinion, we would have figured out the exact causal mechanism of gravity by now if our young people had not been falsely taught that Albert Einstein had already figured it out close to a century ago.
Devil's Objection
There is nothing wrong with dt/dt = 1. All it means is that time is changing at the rate of 1 second per second. Therefore we are traveling toward the future.
Rebuttal
This is, by far, the most common argument for time travel. It comes from laymen and physicists alike. In my opinion, it is the easiest one of all to demolish, and yet, some people never seem to get it. Others understand it immediately and still others have to think about it for a long time before they do.
First of all, dt/dt does not mean 1 second per second. The units cancel out. This fact alone destroys the argument and there really is no need to go further. However, I feel it is important to emphasize the following fact regardless of how shocking or implausible it may be to some:
There is no such thing as the passage of time!
The commonly held notion that time changes is as fallacious as it is detrimental to our understanding of motion. Why? Because "time changes" is a self-referential statement. It is hopelessly illogical! We never observe time changing. We observe changes in physical processes from which we derive static time intervals. We then use these static intervals to quantify the rate of change of various other processes.
Devil's Advocates
|
07-06-2016, 02:10 PM
|
|
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV) is the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.
|
That doesn't mean what you think it means. Read the next sentence. Do you know by now what a solid angle is?
|
No, so explain how "solid angle" changes the meaning.
|
An object that's behind you is outside of your field of view. All that matters is the direction, not the distance. The field of view doesn't end at some distance, and it definitely has nothing to do with the size of an object that you're seeing.
|
07-06-2016, 02:22 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV) is the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.
|
That doesn't mean what you think it means. Read the next sentence. Do you know by now what a solid angle is?
|
No, so explain how "solid angle" changes the meaning.
|
An object that's behind you is outside of your field of view. All that matters is the direction, not the distance. The field of view doesn't end at some distance, and it definitely has nothing to do with the size of an object that you're seeing.
|
I don't know how you can say that being able to see an object has nothing to do with size. Of course it does. If the object is too small to be seen, we can't see it, period. The field of view IS the view that your eyes, or a telescope, or a camera, can detect.
|
07-06-2016, 02:24 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: no understanding
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The only way he could see the lamp with a telescope is if the lamp was actually in his optical range. How can it be when it's a mile away?
|
So the maximum range of all telescopes is now one mile?
|
No, it's how large the object is in relation to the observer. A small object like a lamp would not show up on film or telescope (even when we know telescopes collect light) because it does not show up in any of these instrument's field of view.
|
Do you understand that 'field of view' has nothing to do with 'optical range'? And if the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) can photograph the US flag from 31 miles, why couldn't a telescope see the lamp from one mile?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you call me names Spacemonkey, just be aware that I will not answer you again for a long time.
|
Does that mean you will answer my questions when I don't call you names? Let's test that theory. I am going to post some questions, and I promise not to call you any names until the next time you deliberately evade a direct and relevant question. Fair enough? I'll even make them simple Y/N questions, so this should only take you a few seconds of effort. Here we go...
You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
Are they traveling photons?
Did they come from the Sun?
Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?
Did they travel at the speed of light?
Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
|
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
07-06-2016, 02:25 PM
|
|
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
So you do know what a telescope does right... Right?
Hint it makes things that are small visible.
|
07-06-2016, 02:48 PM
|
|
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't know how you can say that being able to see an object has nothing to do with size.
|
We were talking about what field of view means. It's the angular area that you can see. It has nothing to do with distance, size of objects, etc.
Quote:
Of course it does. If the object is too small to be seen, we can't see it, period.
|
1. There is no such thing as "too small to be seen". 2. That's not what we were talking about.
Quote:
The field of view IS the view that your eyes, or a telescope, or a camera, can detect.
|
It's a collection of directions. It's a solid angle.
|
07-06-2016, 03:00 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV) is the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.
|
That doesn't mean what you think it means. Read the next sentence. Do you know by now what a solid angle is?
|
No, so explain how "solid angle" changes the meaning.
|
An object that's behind you is outside of your field of view. All that matters is the direction, not the distance. The field of view doesn't end at some distance, and it definitely has nothing to do with the size of an object that you're seeing.
|
I don't know how you can say that being able to see an object has nothing to do with size. Of course it does. If the object is too small to be seen, we can't see it, period. The field of view IS the view that your eyes, or a telescope, or a camera, can detect.
|
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, in fact it doesn't seem that you can comprehend anything that you read, and that includes your fathers book. Field of view is not limited to only those things that you can see, but it includes those objects that are within your field of vision, but for one reason or another are not visible under the current conditions. Much that is in our field of view cannot be seen because the view is obstructed in some way. Field of view is the area that we can observe, whether we can see an object in that area or not. Again you are wrong in your understanding of basic terms. You insist on giving them non-standard definitions, and that is most confusing to you, because you think that your definitions are more correct.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-06-2016, 03:28 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
|
Re: no revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're not a scientist David, so stop pretending.
|
I had physics as subsidiary subject when I studied, and special relativity was one of the courses. Nothing what DavidM wrote here is wrong.
Time dilation means that everything seems to go slower with the same factor (clocks, heartbeats, movements, etc), and this factor is dependent on the relative velocity. In my own system of reference nothing special occurs, but if I look to the other one, racing along, I see everything going slower.
This is empirically proven science, and GPS, particle accelerators would not work, and we would not see so many muons on the earth's surface as we do. Everyone who denies special relativity is a crackpot, because (s)he denies empirical science.
And no, there is not anything else going on.
|
07-06-2016, 03:37 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
So you do know what a telescope does right... Right?
Hint it makes things that are small visible.
|
But the small thing has to be within the field of view of the telescope in order for it to be magnified.
|
07-06-2016, 03:39 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: no revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're not a scientist David, so stop pretending.
|
I had physics as subsidiary subject when I studied, and special relativity was one of the courses. Nothing what DavidM wrote here is wrong.
Time dilation means that everything seems to go slower with the same factor (clocks, heartbeats, movements, etc), and this factor is dependent on the relative velocity. In my own system of reference nothing special occurs, but if I look to the other one, racing along, I see everything going slower.
This is empirically proven science, and GPS, particle accelerators would not work, and we would not see so many muons on the earth's surface as we do. Everyone who denies special relativity is a crackpot, because (s)he denies empirical science.
And no, there is not anything else going on.
|
No one is saying the empirical evidence is wrong. What is being disputed is the interpretation.
|
07-06-2016, 03:44 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't know how you can say that being able to see an object has nothing to do with size.
|
We were talking about what field of view means. It's the angular area that you can see. It has nothing to do with distance, size of objects, etc.
Quote:
Of course it does. If the object is too small to be seen, we can't see it, period.
|
1. There is no such thing as "too small to be seen". 2. That's not what we were talking about.
Quote:
The field of view IS the view that your eyes, or a telescope, or a camera, can detect.
|
It's a collection of directions. It's a solid angle.
|
Field of view
The extent of the visible image field that can be seen.
The area that is visible (as through an optical instrument).
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 88 (0 members and 88 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:21 PM.
|
|
|
|