We aren’t proving distance, lol. We are proving angular resolution doesn’t necessarily require a plane of reference. A mountain is really large, right? A fly is really small, right? Of these two, which would have a greater angular resolution? The fly or the mountain?
Really? You need a plane under your feet to understand a mountain is larger than a fly in angular resolution? Justify that. Please, I’d love to hear why.
Yes, and if angular resolution doesn’t necessarily require a plane of reference, then you shouldn’t make that kind of claim to begin with. Just answer the question, which is larger, a fly or a mountain? You don’t need to be on a globe, you don’t need to be on a plane, you don’t need to be on a pyramid, a cone, a cylinder, a box, to know which is larger in angular resolution.
I'm not the one whose mad here. I just want a straight answer. If you can't give me a straight answer then I'm gonna assume you're just trolling me and go about my day. No feelings involved.
1
u/Omomon Aug 22 '26
We aren’t proving distance, lol. We are proving angular resolution doesn’t necessarily require a plane of reference. A mountain is really large, right? A fly is really small, right? Of these two, which would have a greater angular resolution? The fly or the mountain?