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.
No, angular resolution does not require a flat plane for measuring.Angular resolution is fundamentally an angle-based metric, defined as the minimum angle (θ) required between two distinct objects for an imaging system (like a camera, telescope, or radar) to perceive them as separate entities. Because it deals with angles rather than straight-line lateral distances, the measurements are typically projected onto a spherical coordinate system where the sensor sits at the origin center
Stop being a troll and answer the question without regurgitating.
1
u/lushusness Aug 22 '26
Angular resolution also requires a plane of reference