Magnifying things that are close and things that are far gets us closer to those things without traveling the distance required to get closer.
How do you measure distance when you’re magnifying smaller things?
Say we are at zero between near and far. What objects are equi”distant” to us in terms of the amount of magnification required to see them “as if” with the naked eye (with 20-20 vision)?
Getting “closer” to a small object to reveal its details at a certain magnification, versus getting “closer” to a far object to reveal more of its details… it feels like something other than distance is being crossed in the case of getting closer to the smaller object.
But what if that is just a misinterpretation of (by) our brain? Maybe we just don’t understand the structure of the universe?
I guess I’m asking for equidistant standard candles (one small, magnified with a microscope, one large, magnified with a telescope), and how you calculated the…
But don’t shrivel at the thought that such musings exist premordially on the level of say Sartre’s ‘look’ and Pointillistic aesthetic rules , intertwined with the crossover grass rooted prairie, within the upper sense that only one lost in the forest can apprehend?
Before wandering into the wonder land and magically participating in tea parties, where most will be taxed to the limit?
I didn’t say that, that other collector said it , I couldn’t recollect him, but he is bugging the hell out of me.
bugging the hell out of me. 