Page 1 of 1

What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:12 pm
by Enigma3
What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Re: What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:10 pm
by Harbal
Enigma3 wrote:What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?
It needs to be exactly the right distance away.

Re: What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:04 am
by Dalek Prime
Enigma3 wrote:What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?
What if I've been led to believe I'm x feet tall, but I'm actually x inches tall? Where do I stand in size comparison to the object then? Other than that, I can usually tell by the angle I'm looking at it from. Surveyors do this all the time.

Re: What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 4:07 pm
by A_Seagull
Enigma3 wrote:What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?
Objects do not have a real size, they only have an appearance.

Re: What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:01 pm
by Impenitent
Kantian binoculars are not all they're cracked up to be...

the distance of the object isn't as critical as the volume of the objection...

-Imp

Re: What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 11:33 pm
by Obvious Leo
A_Seagull wrote:
Enigma3 wrote:What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?
Objects do not have a real size, they only have an appearance.
\

Agreed. The notion of an "object" is itself entirely subjective so it logically follows that its spatial extension must also be.

Re: What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:15 am
by Harbal
Obvious Leo wrote:
A_Seagull wrote:
Enigma3 wrote:What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?
Objects do not have a real size, they only have an appearance.
\

Agreed. The notion of an "object" is itself entirely subjective so it logically follows that its spatial extension must also be.
What implications does this have for shoe sizes, Leo.

Re: What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:33 am
by Obvious Leo
Harbal wrote:What implications does this have for shoe sizes, Leo.
A very thoughtful question, mate. It is well known that shoe sizes in the modern world of footwear retailing are selected in an entirely arbitrary fashion by a computerised random number generator housed deep underground in an eastern bloc country which was formerly a satellite state of the Soviet empire. There can be little doubt that this transparent attempt to banjax the shoe consumer is a finely nuanced neo-Bolshevik attack on his personal liberty in an over-arching quest for world domination.

The solution, Harbal? Refuse to bow your head before such an obvious imperialist yoke. Don't even bother to try and read the f****** numbers on the shoe itself but instead simply try the bloody things on first, remembering always to first don clean socks as a social courtesy to the other patrons in the store.

Re: What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:08 am
by thedoc
Harbal wrote: What implications does this have for shoe sizes,
Some men have really small feet. All women have really small feet. Just ask a shoe salesman.

Re: What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:25 am
by mickthinks
No distance at all.

Re: What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:33 am
by uwot
Or next to a tape measure.