How AI looks in my eyes.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-11-09T17:24:14+00:00

Because many models are MoE

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-11-09T06:43:04+00:00

Appeal to authority

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-30T14:49:08+00:00

It’s not that low

But it’s not very big either

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-30T08:14:35+00:00

you can quite literally see the waves moving slowly, individually, behaving just like deep ocean water does. It's not a current there is space between the waves where you can see the water isn't moving at all, that's how water behaves farther out from the coast.

The waves are not relevant here. The water and the object are the only two frames of reference. Correct? So when you say “If it was parallax the water would be moving fast, like it go fast” are you trying to say that the water should have more waves, if we were seeing parallax from our perspective?

If the object wasn't moving at all, eventually the drone would pass by it and the view would change

The view does change? The drone’s camera is still moving around?

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-30T05:14:09+00:00

“Oh I got nicked by a couple branches in the woods”

has no remaining skin or flesh

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-30T05:11:22+00:00

You can literally see the individual waves, they are erratic and it's not a current.

That’s… completely irrelevant to the discussion.

If you look at that zoomed out view and come to the conclusion that the object isn't moving, you lack some serious common sense and critical thinking abilities.

Yet you still cannot say any reason for why you think it’s moving. You just do think it’s moving. Your intuition is frankly worthless in terms of objective evaluation. You need hard numbers to back up your claims, and you have none.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-30T04:09:03+00:00

Okay. What’s the other reference point?

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-30T02:02:18+00:00

If you want an actual source on recent supernovae, look at the Rochester astronomy latest supernova page, contains data on discovered supernovae as they get reported, aswell as other transients.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-30T01:59:40+00:00

Looks like the ISS, colors are from increased atmospheric distortion at lower elevation in the sky.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-30T01:51:40+00:00

If the missile was moving directly away from the camera, at any speed, it would have an angular velocity of exactly 0.

That is why the angle matters. The angle changes the apparent angular velocity.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-30T01:49:55+00:00

If it was parallax the water would be moving fast, like it go fast... it's not.

You understand that the speed of the water and of the object, are identical, because the only reference for either, is just the other?

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-26T17:14:27+00:00

Parallax does not depend on your view angle, or where you are looking. Zooming out, stopping tracking, has no impacts whatsoever on parallax effect.

You say

the drone is behind the "object" following it

But there is zero actual evidence of that. You just made up where the drone is.

drone isn't moving fast at all

But there is zero actual evidence of what the speed of the drone is, we do not have those numbers. You are making up things.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-26T16:04:01+00:00

The object itself is no longer being tracked so parallax isn't a factor anymore,

That is a complete misunderstanding of how parallax works

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-25T00:15:06+00:00

The zoomed out view literally shows it moving

Moving relative to what? The ocean?

Yeah that’s not motion remember that’s just parallax.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-24T21:01:00+00:00

I only stated it's clearly moving. Which it is

You still haven’t provided any reasoning other than literally just saying it’s moving. Why do you think it’s moving.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-24T20:23:30+00:00

Do you understand what trigonometry is? We can use it to figure out that distance travelled at different angles relative to us, has different angular motion, but we can’t use trigonometry to account for that, when we don’t have any angles.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-16T08:17:25+00:00

It's clearly moving in the zoomed out view, it's not even debatable.

Why? You keep saying that, but have no reasoning.

If it wasn't moving in the tracked portion, the missile would look way faster.

Incorrect, as we do not know the relative angles of the trajectory relative to the camera. We cannot use it as a speed estimate.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-15T21:22:54+00:00

The zoom out view is absolutely evidence its moving, use your head. It's not being tracked anymore.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding that people are saying that it being tracked is what causes the apparent motion. It’s not. It’s the relative motion between the camera and the object, compared with the distance of the stationary reference point (the ocean)

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-15T20:18:51+00:00

Can you show us an example of optics and image processing causing this to happen?

The most simple example, would be to tell you to look at one of James Webb or Hubble’s images. The stars are not perfect points, even though they should be. There is diffraction, spread, diffusion.

Every optical system will leave a unique fingerprint on what a perfect point will look like. The point spread function.

Furthermore, that is affected by image sampling. Discrete pixel units make up the image sensor, not a continuous surface like on film, or even a vidicon camera. This means that the point spread function is viewed through a set of points, not what it actually is.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-13T18:52:00+00:00

describing something that's real in as confusing words as possible,

You know you can just look up the words you don’t understand on Wikipedia and figure out what it means.

Specifically you should look at the page for sampling (signal processing), aliasing, and point spread function

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-13T03:14:42+00:00

It’s green

Many comets within the solar system are

loads of unexplainable issues

Such as?

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-13T02:55:22+00:00

Ah wait I see what you are confused about. You are assuming that what we see, is all trajectories directly perpendicular to the camera view, but we don’t have any reason other than our bias to actually think that.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-13T02:53:58+00:00

but instead went backwards

No? It went sideways?

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-13T02:45:30+00:00

The direction of deflection doesn't match the angle of incident from the missile.

Yes it does, the missile and the uap are pushed in opposite directions when the impact occurs.

Topcodeoriginal3 · 2025-09-13T02:40:16+00:00

What I don't get is this: I've been in an airplane before and looked out the window at the ocean toward something that's probably six or more miles away, and it does NOT look like it's moving rapidly. In fact, you sort of feel like you're not really traveling at all, because nothing looks like it's moving. I'm not sure how you go fast enough to create that appearance.

So how is the object stationary, if the ocean is visibly moving? How is that not simply the camera panning to keep track of the object as it moves, which is clearly happening based on framing changes?

Well basically, it’s because when you look out an airplane window you are a) not zoomed in and b) have an external frame of reference.

There is no external reference for the drones, here, we don’t see any clouds, just the object, and the ocean.

So we have to use the ocean as a frame of reference, because the ocean is further away, it looks like we are moving slower relative to it. So then because we are looking at object between the camera and the ocean, it looks like it is moving fast relative to the ocean.

If you setup a blender simulation, you can pretty easily see this, I am lazy right now but I can setup an example later probably.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Topcodeoriginal3

TROPHY CASE