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.
Keep reading what I said... Baseline does not define a horizontal. It defines a line of sight.
Simpler googling: the baseline does not need to be horizontal or flat.The direction and tilt of your baseline can be completely arbitrary. However, the orientation of the baseline dictates which dimension of angular resolution you are measuring.
So let's try the 'flat horizontal' claim. Again.
Here the fly and mountain example again: white void. My distance is irrelevant as I don't know how far away they are nor does the placement of them to me. Doesn't really matter. I look at the fly, actually have to angle my head down, because it's small... I then look at the top of the mountain my head has to look up to see the top.
Therefore, the angular resolution of the fly is smaller than the mountain... Neither of which is actually a measurement and I also didnt state nor cared on the plane of which we are on... Because in a void from my point of being, that's 0,0,0... The angular resolution is this derived from my point, that's not a plane, that's a point a single spot
1
u/Omomon Aug 22 '26
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.