so basically you can no longer measure the diameter of the coin (by parallax metode) or you canot see it at all? is there a point beyond you cannot see it or is just a function of the sensor (eye) sensitivity?
I thought using the coefficient 1.22 means you are already using degrees, and since you converted from degrees using the conversion factor to convert from radians to degrees, the answer is wrong? I thought you would only need to convert to degrees if you used the coefficient 250,000 and not 1.22
Thank you for the great video! I would like to ask what I should use as lambda in the formel for the limit resolution by epiflurescence. d=0,61.lambda/ NA What is lambda by epiflurescence: excitatationwavelenght or emissionwavelengt?
you probably dont give a damn but does any of you know a method to log back into an Instagram account?? I was stupid lost the login password. I love any tricks you can offer me!
@Raylan Jaxton I really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff atm. Takes quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
If your trying to see an object 100,000 miles away, that is 25 miles across with the naked eye - 1) is this even possible? and if so, is it resolution ( which to me is the eyes power or ability to resolve that image) or angular resolution and what causes the difference? - I'm not a math guy and since we know math is only one type of tool to describe a function and there are many others try explaining this to me without the math. Thanks.
I'm hella late and can't answer your question at all, but I can tell you what is shown in this video is sort of an upper bound for human vision. Assuming you have insane 2000/20 vision, your retina is filled with light detecting cells, your blood doesn't flow so your vision isn't affected, you are looking at things under the most perfectest of environments, etc etc, just by the mere fact your eye is an optical instrument you are limited to this resolution. There is no guarantee you can see this well, but you definitely can't do better. Obviously this is not a tight bound, but it's an upper bound, and if you do some tests to determine some ghetto lower bound, you get at least a hint at an answer to your question.
In the last you have said, if the object come any closer than 50 metres for 2 degree resolution. You cannot register any diff. Isn't that the opposite of what your'e teaching?
Karthik Mothukuri That was a slip of tongue. What I really meant is if the SOURCES came closer to each other (meaning the diameter of the coin decreased) then it would subtend a smaller angle. Totally my bad :D
That is what we are experiencing with boats over the horizon. They arent going over earth curve but its the Raleigh criterium that we are experiencing. Funny how the earth curve calculators claim 1.22 x the square root of the observers height in feet. Earth is flat.
@@Mahesh_Shenoy I understand that. Please disregard the subject and just follow the facts/ science. Do you think given the numbers and your presentation that it is possible we are experiencing the Raleigh criterium and not claimed earth curvature? Also I can prove earth is flat. The sextant proves earth is a flat plane via elevation angles. CANT get an elevation angle with a curved adjacent at your feet. But the Raleigh question please. Im truly asking your professional opinion
@@Mahesh_Shenoy so you tell me that the Raleigh criterium doesnt make things disappear bottom up only horizontally? We both know the answer is that it does. I could prove to you right now that the Earth is a flat plane with the sextant because you can't get an elevation angle with a curve at your feet you must have a flat plane
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I love the way he say "juuust"🥰
Very good, far more lucid than the more popular youtube videos on this topic.
This explanation is just amazing. To the point
Finally understood the concept. Thank you! Sir Could you please make a video on fresnal biprism experiment?
Great video, really explained it well! Subbed
Very good explanation! !
Welldone🥰
Amazing explanation
Thank you. Very well explained.
so basically you can no longer measure the diameter of the coin (by parallax metode) or you canot see it at all? is there a point beyond you cannot see it or is just a function of the sensor (eye) sensitivity?
thank you, you have explained it very well!
I thought using the coefficient 1.22 means you are already using degrees, and since you converted from degrees using the conversion factor to convert from radians to degrees, the answer is wrong? I thought you would only need to convert to degrees if you used the coefficient 250,000 and not 1.22
No, the 1.22 is to go from rectangular slits to circular openings!
Thank you so much!!!
400-670 nm is easy to see but the brilliance rolls off rather fast close to UV at 400 and close to Near-IR at 670 nm.
Thanks for the video! Can you please tell me why (intuitively) increasing the wavelength of light worsens the resolution? Thanks so much!
if i understood it right, for a higher wavelength, the distance between the maxima and the minima increases. Hence the resolutions issue
Thank you for the great video!
I would like to ask what I should use as lambda in the formel for the limit resolution by epiflurescence. d=0,61.lambda/ NA
What is lambda by epiflurescence: excitatationwavelenght or emissionwavelengt?
you probably dont give a damn but does any of you know a method to log back into an Instagram account??
I was stupid lost the login password. I love any tricks you can offer me!
@Raylan Jaxton I really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff atm.
Takes quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
@Raylan Jaxton It worked and I finally got access to my account again. Im so happy!
Thanks so much, you saved my ass :D
@Zane Dexter Glad I could help :D
If your trying to see an object 100,000 miles away, that is 25 miles across with the naked eye - 1) is this even possible? and if so, is it resolution ( which to me is the eyes power or ability to resolve that image) or angular resolution and what causes the difference? - I'm not a math guy and since we know math is only one type of tool to describe a function and there are many others try explaining this to me without the math. Thanks.
I'm hella late and can't answer your question at all, but I can tell you what is shown in this video is sort of an upper bound for human vision.
Assuming you have insane 2000/20 vision, your retina is filled with light detecting cells, your blood doesn't flow so your vision isn't affected, you are looking at things under the most perfectest of environments, etc etc, just by the mere fact your eye is an optical instrument you are limited to this resolution. There is no guarantee you can see this well, but you definitely can't do better.
Obviously this is not a tight bound, but it's an upper bound, and if you do some tests to determine some ghetto lower bound, you get at least a hint at an answer to your question.
Thank you!
In the last you have said, if the object come any closer than 50 metres for 2 degree resolution. You cannot register any diff. Isn't that the opposite of what your'e teaching?
Karthik Mothukuri That was a slip of tongue.
What I really meant is if the SOURCES came closer to each other (meaning the diameter of the coin decreased) then it would subtend a smaller angle.
Totally my bad :D
awesome
Where i listen this voice
Maybe Khan Academy?
That is what we are experiencing with boats over the horizon. They arent going over earth curve but its the Raleigh criterium that we are experiencing. Funny how the earth curve calculators claim 1.22 x the square root of the observers height in feet. Earth is flat.
Not the conclusion I was going for!
@@Mahesh_Shenoy I understand that. Please disregard the subject and just follow the facts/ science. Do you think given the numbers and your presentation that it is possible we are experiencing the Raleigh criterium and not claimed earth curvature? Also I can prove earth is flat. The sextant proves earth is a flat plane via elevation angles. CANT get an elevation angle with a curved adjacent at your feet. But the Raleigh question please. Im truly asking your professional opinion
@@davesantiago1827 No, I don't think so!
@@Mahesh_Shenoy so you tell me that the Raleigh criterium doesnt make things disappear bottom up only horizontally? We both know the answer is that it does. I could prove to you right now that the Earth is a flat plane with the sextant because you can't get an elevation angle with a curve at your feet you must have a flat plane
nice ...
Thank you
thanks man
👎 ❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌👎
In experience. .............
Oh man! Heart broken!