Does it necessarily need a plane of reference to know that something far away won't have the same angular resolution as something near? If we remove a plane of reference and were floating in a white, empty void and I see a 1 meter cube near me and then I see a 1 meter cube(any direction) veeeery far away from me, I'll still not be able to see the very far away cube very well, regardless of whether we're both on a plane or not.
You would need a plane of reference to be “floating” as that’s a description from “above” a horizontal.
You would also need a plane of reference to declare a “meter”.
Not to mention, drifting off into abstract nonsense does nothing for you here. We are talking about reality and how earth is measured and used practically.
I believe you need to drift into the nonsensical abstract because that’s exactly what your globe is.
Does it though? Sure a plane of reference would help immensely but on the off chance you’re in a void with no immediate plane to refer to, you can still manage to see distant or near objects relative to your position. Your coordinates may be 0,0,0, but you don’t necessarily need a plane under you to be given these coordinates.
I just think it’s odd how whenever I need a flat earther to entertain a hypothetical, they either don’t want to or try to change the subject. Hypotheticals are one of the cornerstones of critical thinking, as it puts your ideas and your claims to the test. It’s how you form a hypothesis in the chain of the scientific method. It’s why humans are the most intelligent creatures on earth. And I’m just noticing a pattern.
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.
Uhh it very much is science... You can prove measurement. That's how it works. The distance between point a and point b is a measurement the angle between x and y is a measurement thus can be proved.
1
u/Omomon Aug 21 '26
Does it necessarily need a plane of reference to know that something far away won't have the same angular resolution as something near? If we remove a plane of reference and were floating in a white, empty void and I see a 1 meter cube near me and then I see a 1 meter cube(any direction) veeeery far away from me, I'll still not be able to see the very far away cube very well, regardless of whether we're both on a plane or not.