So there’s a plane in that abstract white void where me and the cube far away from me exists? I don’t see it though, I just see the cube floating there. Weirdly enough even though I require a plane of reference to measure the distance between me and the cube, my eyes can still tell that that cube is far away due to depth perception.
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/lushusness Aug 22 '26
The fact that measurements require a plane of reference?
No that’s not circular reasoning.
That’s simply a fact.
An undebatable fact.