Can Diffraction Obstruct Bottom-First? (Rayleigh Criterion Part 4)

Part 4 of 4
What is the Rayleigh Criterion

Jump Ahead:
00:00 Intro
01:50 Distant Objects Look Blurry
04:05 Top vs Bottom
05:30 Does your Curve Calculator Account for the Rayleigh Criterion?
05:55 Is this Explained by the Limitations of the Human Eye?
06:43 Do Objects Disappear Bottom-Up Because of the Rayleigh Criterion?

[CChrisHolmes]

It always amazes me that Flerfers cite, ‘compression’ (in the vertical plane) to explain things disappearing bottom up, but it doesn’t seem to affect the horizontal measurements.

[eddsson]

"Nah-uh!" "Magnetic something" "Electric Something" "NASA" "Zoom something" "Perspective" I probably missed a few something's but "No, because I don't like it" is probably what we should expect. Thanks though, love these video mini-series!

[ekimnosettam]

You have presented more actual science in these 4 short videos than can be found in all of the output of the flat earth community. They of course will counter with, "Nuh uhh." and go on like nothing happened while applauded their debunking skills. As a teacher myself, I like your presentation style.

[fedogma]

I would have to assume that when flat earthers take an eye test the letters start disappearing from the bottom up.

[fepeerreview]

Great series! I always like it when we can go a little more depth into a subject and this is a great way to do it. Thanks for this.

[glennledrew]

A noble effort, and definitely a positive contribution. I'm certain you understand the matters I raise below. My concerns are related to the art of communication.

This discussion may not fully clarify the matter in one respect, at least. The heavy use of the term Rayleigh criterion here could reinforce the misaprehension that this is a physical phenomenon in and of itself. Diffraction is the phenomenon, Rayleigh's is just one of several subtly different criteria by which to define a threshold of resolvability. In so many instances here the word "diffraction" should replace "Rayleigh criterion."

To say that refraction is a similar phenomenon to diffraction is not wise. Not only is the cause completely different, but their magnitude changes in an opposite sense by wavelength. Refraction increases with shorter wavelength, whereas diffraction increases with longer wavelength.

It always bears stressing that diffraction in an imaging system like the eye or a camera occurs at the aperture's limiting stop, and operates everywhere in the 2D image surface equally. This alone disallows the absurdity of diffraction causing distant objects to sink below a horizontal obstructor.

Cheers!

[donjezza]

great series, i admire your education skills

[realcygnus]

Good one Matt ! 👍 Plus Gawy Wybenga's entire world just got destroyed as pure gravy. 🤣

[sthurston]

I didn't get a notification for part 4. I spotted it in the set in the home page.

[clivedavis]

I like to use an example of a ship partly below the horizon and also disappearing behind a headland, with a further piece of land beyond the horizon and ship, but visible with a house on it. The house is smaller than the ship, yet much further away than the ship, yet is still visible. The same criterion of whatever they want to use would apply to the disappearance of the bottom of the ship by the horizon and the front of the ship by the headland. The front of the ship is definitely being hidden by the headland and not disappearing due to any other flerf explanation. I don't live near the sea or I would try to take a photo of this situation. Perhaps someone can.

[treadingtheboards]

A very informative and well presented series, I am able to just listen to what you are saying and can see the pictures in my mind.
On the subject of the flat earthers saying the Rayleigh Criterion causes objects to disappear bottom up, if this were the case, why does it only happen when at the horizon, wouldn't this occur no matter how high the object was?
The Flerf response to that question is ignore it.

[johnnyragadoo]

I can't understand why the flat earth Rayleigh claims didn't implode the first day. Things that are hidden still have an angular size. How on this wonderful round earth could the angle to an adjacent object get so small it could hide the lower 2/3rds of a skyscraper, leaving the smaller upper 1/3rd in plain view?

What I want to ask next is if the bricks at the bottom of the building are too small to see, how can I see the top of the building? Photons are smaller than bricks, and photons are all my eyes register!

[rbguy]

Are you still making videos? I really like your content.

[UncleDruncles]

Just checking in on ya. Seeing if you’re alright. Feelin ok lately? Lotta folks takin ill “suddenly” as of late…. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[UncleDruncles]

Hey Doc, whatcha think of Lex Friedman?

[fehmidonmez]

On the day of Mars Moon Occultation most of the amateur telescopes shows Mars and Moon together and both have clear sharp outlines. The funny part for me is Earth is 1x away from Moon, Mars is 582x away from moon. And Mars radius is just 2x of Moon's radius. How come amateur telescopes can get in-focus images of two objects with these position and sizes? Shouldn't be the Mars fully blurred?

[gebus]

If you listen closely, you can hear a bull-milking flerf making sad noises.

[UncleDruncles]

Hurry up and produce something already…. The flat Earthers are gaining ground and fast! 🤷🏻‍♂️😂

[UncleDruncles]

Any converts yet or still just MC’ing the echo chamber? I think the other side is definitely winning in this regard. Their numbers sure are growing amazingly somehow.

Need to get you more exposure it seems 🤷🏻‍♂️🤠

[XeiDaMoKaFE]

Debunk lifeis short scientific method next