[Pete Svarrior]

at that scale you can see the bumps of the waves.

Which is how you know you're not looking at the horizon. You already know this - you were explicitly told it and, even though you chose not to address it, even in passing, you assured me that you didn't ignore it. In other words - you've read it, and you have no response.

Stop trying to recycle arguments you already know are critically flawed - it makes you look dishonest, even though you're obviously totally just joking.

[SimonC]

You suggest that on a RE you would be able to see a horizon line - but on a globe that line is the curve of a 'ball'.  And a curve is a continuous 'thing' on a ball. It cannot be seen as an absolutely definite line. Its almost like the horizon line is being viewed tangentially. Therefore there will always be blur as the curve appears to form and curve away. Is this not correct?

Yes, its like the horizontal line is being viewed tangentially.  That's because you are viewing it tangentially. 

No, that is not correct.  Why would it be a blur?  As far as the horizon, it is visible.  Beyond the horizon it is not visible.  Look at a pool ball.  Look over the hood of your car.  I'm not going to draw a diagram or show you a photo, because that introduces the idea that the line has thickness, or a row of pixels; it doesn't.  Its a line.  Or a demarcation, if you will. 

Above it; atmosphere and space. 

Below it: pool ball, car hood, Earth, or whatever.

If you agree its a tangent then you will accept tangents are infinite. there is no definite point of contact from the line of sight of the curve. Try drawing a line at a tangent to a circle on a piece of paper. the point of contact cannot technically be located as it is only so much as the minutest 'touch'. This is why there can be no definite line for the horizon. What you see is an amalgamation of the pre-curve-the curve and with light refraction the post-curve.

[SimonC]

Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable.  The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day. 

If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.

Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.

That's the point.

We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.

You couldn't plot with any accuracy the exact line of the horizon from 3 miles away. Even if you did manage to wade thogh the swell, waves, freak waves, refraction, haze, reflections.

[SimonC]

Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable.  The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day. 

If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.

Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.

That's the point.

Luckily, you don’t have to use the naked eye. I posted a picture above which was zoomed in. The division between sea and sky is very clear and at that scale you can see the bumps of the waves.

So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.

[DuncanDoenitz]

If you agree its a tangent then you will accept tangents are infinite. there is no definite point of contact from the line of sight of the curve. Try drawing a line at a tangent to a circle on a piece of paper. the point of contact cannot technically be located as it is only so much as the minutest 'touch'. This is why there can be no definite line for the horizon. What you see is an amalgamation of the pre-curve-the curve and with light refraction the post-curve.

You're missing the point; its exactly because its an infinitely precise point, and you are trying to represent it with finite terms.  The reason you can't draw it (and the reason I haven't tried to) is the limitations of pen and paper.  The moment you try to draw it, you are introducing thickness, which it does not have, so your diagram is always going to be a false representation. 

Do you have access to technical drawing software?  Draw a tangent to an arc.  Now zoom in.  Zoom in again.  You can zoom in to infinity, to the limits of the software, making your "arc" and "tangent" thinner and thinner.  Your pixels are representing millimeters on an arc the size of Earth. 

[AATW]

at that scale you can see the bumps of the waves.

Which is how you know you're not looking at the horizon. You already know this - you were explicitly told it

Well, you claimed it but I don't really understand that claim. The horizon is the line between sea and sky. And the reason for that line in RE is that the sea curves away for you. That's what stops you seeing more sea. But why would that line be perfectly straight? We've already talked about the mathematical perfection and the real world.
I don't understand why you think this distinction matters.

Stop trying to recycle arguments you already know are critically flawed

How about your start explaining why you believe the arguments to be flawed. Then maybe we can have a more sensible conversation.

[AATW]

So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.

Why does it have to be a flat line at that scale? We don't live on a perfect sphere.
The real question is why do you only see the first few miles of sea beyond which there's an abrupt end? It's not visibility, in that zoomed in view you can clearly see the ship beyond the horizon. But you can't see the bottom of it. Why not?

[Gonzo]

Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable.  The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day. 

If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.

Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.

That's the point.

We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.

You couldn't plot with any accuracy the exact line of the horizon from 3 miles away. Even if you did manage to wade thogh the swell, waves, freak waves, refraction, haze, reflections.

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not. I spent the first 18 years of my life looking at the horizon out to sea literally hundreds of times every day.

Do you live near the coast, SimonC?

[DuncanDoenitz]

So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.

If we're getting to this level of detail, its a median line between the peaks and troughs.  The volume of water present above the median is equal to the volume absent below the line.  The position of the median is a function of gravity, the shape of the Earth, and the volume of water on the Earth.  Waves are principally a localised topical effect of wind; past, and present. 

@Gonzo; by my count that's 3 individuals who have failed to respond to your question.  Its difficult to respond to someone's opinion on a phenomenon (in this case the maritime horizon), when we don't know whether they are actually in a position to observe it directly.  (Or, indeed, if they've ever observed it directly). 

[Action80]

So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.

Why does it have to be a flat line at that scale? We don't live on a perfect sphere.
The real question is why do you only see the first few miles of sea beyond which there's an abrupt end? It's not visibility, in that zoomed in view you can clearly see the ship beyond the horizon. But you can't see the bottom of it. Why not?

Come on here claiming a sharp line, then asks "why does it have to be a flat line?"

Come back when you figure it out.

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't really understand that claim.

I'm glad you finally admit that. It's an improvement on your previous suggestion that the claim, which you don't understand (and which you likely haven't read), is wrong. Baby steps.

The horizon is the line between sea and sky.

Words have meanings. You can't just reinvent the horizon and expect others to accept it. Or, if you can, then I demand the same privilege. Beware, though, I'm gonna pick something real silly for my definition.

How about your start explaining why you believe the arguments to be flawed. Then maybe we can have a more sensible conversation.

I did. And then I pointed out when it seemed like you ignored it. Instead of no longer ignoring it, you just told me you aren't ignoring it. So, since you're tooooootally not ignoring it, but you're also not responding to it, we're left with very few sane options.

[Action80]

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.

You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.

[markjo]

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.

You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.

Are you concerned that the "line" between the water and sky is not a geometrically perfect straight line?  If so, then why should it make a difference in anything but most pedantic sense?

[SimonC]

So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.

Why does it have to be a flat line at that scale? We don't live on a perfect sphere.
The real question is why do you only see the first few miles of sea beyond which there's an abrupt end? It's not visibility, in that zoomed in view you can clearly see the ship beyond the horizon. But you can't see the bottom of it. Why not?

'You can clearly see the ship beyond the horizon' You as in 'I'?

I can't. I have seen images of ships allegedly half over the horizon which have been fabricated. I have seen video footage of ships at what appears to be a great distance but there is nothing to suggest they are over the curve.

[SimonC]

Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable.  The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day. 

If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.

Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.

That's the point.

We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.

You couldn't plot with any accuracy the exact line of the horizon from 3 miles away. Even if you did manage to wade thogh the swell, waves, freak waves, refraction, haze, reflections.

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not. I spent the first 18 years of my life looking at the horizon out to sea literally hundreds of times every day.

Do you live near the coast, SimonC?

Just because someone has done something for a number of years does not mean they have been doing it right. Practice doesnt make perfect. Practice makes permanent. My heating engineer had been using an old saw to cut coper pipe since he was an apprentice. He had no idea that modern day pipe cutters had been invented and carried on blissfully with his 'rough' and time-consuming jointing method.
Many people think/believe they can see a definite line of the horizon. But thats c.3 miles away. And is so fine that it isnt even the thickness of a piece of paper - and you couldnt see something that thin at 3 miles.

[DuncanDoenitz]

I can't. I have seen images of ships allegedly half over the horizon which have been fabricated. I have seen video footage of ships at what appears to be a great distance but there is nothing to suggest they are over the curve.

This is so frustrating that it hardly seems worth pursuing.  Its all "images" this, and "video" that; have you ever actually seen a marine horizon with your eyeballs?  With ships on it? 

And of course you can't see a line.  There isn't a line with thickness, that's the point.  What you are supposed to be observing is the edge of one entity, and the start of another.  Look at the edge of your phone, or monitor.  Is there a line?  Can you supply an image of it? 

[Action80]

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.

You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.

Are you concerned that the "line" between the water and sky is not a geometrically perfect straight line?  If so, then why should it make a difference in anything but most pedantic sense?

Once again, it is readily apparent the gradients of color between water and sky are, at times, indistinguishable from each other, rendering the delineation between the two (at a point three miles away from the observer) impossible.

Same with the issues of reflectivity in both mediums. Both can be very reflective at times. A person has no way of knowing what the conditions of any point three miles away are while standing there looking at it.

[markjo]

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.

You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.

Are you concerned that the "line" between the water and sky is not a geometrically perfect straight line?  If so, then why should it make a difference in anything but most pedantic sense?

Once again, it is readily apparent the gradients of color between water and sky are, at times, indistinguishable from each other, rendering the delineation between the two (at a point three miles away from the observer) impossible.

Same with the issues of reflectivity in both mediums. Both can be very reflective at times. A person has no way of knowing what the conditions of any point three miles away are while standing there looking at it.

And yet there are other times where there is no gradient of color between the water and sky or reflectivity in either medium where the distinction is quite obvious.  Don't those situations count?

As for knowing the conditions three miles out to sea...  Well, it's a fairly trivial thing to have someone go three miles out on a boat and report those conditions back to you via phone or radio.

[stack]

...at times...

Yes, "at times". What exactly is the issue here? Isn't it really simple? Sometimes where the sky meets the land/water, whatever, that meeting point, the visual delineation between the two, is crisp, sharp as a tack. Other times, it's not. Mystery solved?

[Action80]

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.

You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.

Are you concerned that the "line" between the water and sky is not a geometrically perfect straight line?  If so, then why should it make a difference in anything but most pedantic sense?

Once again, it is readily apparent the gradients of color between water and sky are, at times, indistinguishable from each other, rendering the delineation between the two (at a point three miles away from the observer) impossible.

Same with the issues of reflectivity in both mediums. Both can be very reflective at times. A person has no way of knowing what the conditions of any point three miles away are while standing there looking at it.

And yet there are other times where there is no gradient of color between the water and sky or reflectivity in either medium where the distinction is quite obvious.  Don't those situations count?

You have no way of knowing what situations are present at the moment of observation, given you are three miles away.

As for knowing the conditions three miles out to sea...  Well, it's a fairly trivial thing to have someone go three miles out on a boat and report those conditions back to you via phone or radio.

They are at their point, and you are at yours. They are looking at what things look like up close, not from three miles away. Things look different.