[GingerNinja0913]

Why can I see further when I am higher in elevation?

[totallackey]

Because the atmoplane becomes less dense and clearer as you increase altitude.

[nickrulercreator]

Because the atmoplane becomes less dense and clearer as you increase altitude.

But you'd be looking through even more atmosphere then, if you can see further.

[totallackey]

Because the atmoplane becomes less dense and clearer as you increase altitude.

But you'd be looking through even more atmosphere then, if you can see further.

Yes, you would be looking through more of the atmoplane. A more clear and less dense atmoplane.

I go to the East River in New York. I look down into the water and can see a foot. I go to a mountain lake in the Sierra Nevada, I look down and can see twenty feet to the bottom.

[nickrulercreator]

Because the atmoplane becomes less dense and clearer as you increase altitude.

But you'd be looking through even more atmosphere then, if you can see further.

Yes, you would be looking through more of the atmoplane. A more clear and less dense atmoplane.

I go to the East River in New York. I look down into the water and can see a foot. I go to a mountain lake in the Sierra Nevada, I look down and can see twenty feet to the bottom.

How would it be more clear and less dense? You might be in a less dense area, but if you're looking further, you're looking right back into that denser area, and more of it.

As for water, why does that matter? Water doesn't change density. Water is water. Your viewing distance changes for a few reasons. Either the water is dirtier or cleaner, or the color of the sand underneath is darker or lighter. If it is lighter, you can see further down.

[totallackey]

Because the atmoplane becomes less dense and clearer as you increase altitude.

But you'd be looking through even more atmosphere then, if you can see further.

Yes, you would be looking through more of the atmoplane. A more clear and less dense atmoplane.

I go to the East River in New York. I look down into the water and can see a foot. I go to a mountain lake in the Sierra Nevada, I look down and can see twenty feet to the bottom.

How would it be more clear and less dense? You might be in a less dense area, but if you're looking further, you're looking right back into that denser area, and more of it.

Not at elevation.

As for water, why does that matter? Water doesn't change density. Water is water.

First water can change density.
" Density is measured as mass (g) per unit of volume (cm³). Water is densest at 3.98°C and is least dense at 0°C (freezing point). Water density changes with temperature and salinity."

Your viewing distance changes for a few reasons. Either the water is dirtier or cleaner, or the color of the sand underneath is darker or lighter. If it is lighter, you can see further down.

Which was in support of my point.

Particulates in suspension, etc...all contribute to why one can see further in the clearer air as altitude increases.

[nickrulercreator]

Because the atmoplane becomes less dense and clearer as you increase altitude.

But you'd be looking through even more atmosphere then, if you can see further.

Yes, you would be looking through more of the atmoplane. A more clear and less dense atmoplane.

I go to the East River in New York. I look down into the water and can see a foot. I go to a mountain lake in the Sierra Nevada, I look down and can see twenty feet to the bottom.

How would it be more clear and less dense? You might be in a less dense area, but if you're looking further, you're looking right back into that denser area, and more of it.

Not at elevation.

As for water, why does that matter? Water doesn't change density. Water is water.

First water can change density.
" Density is measured as mass (g) per unit of volume (cm³). Water is densest at 3.98°C and is least dense at 0°C (freezing point). Water density changes with temperature and salinity."

Your viewing distance changes for a few reasons. Either the water is dirtier or cleaner, or the color of the sand underneath is darker or lighter. If it is lighter, you can see further down.

Which was in support of my point.

Particulates in suspension, etc...all contribute to why one can see further in the clearer air as altitude increases.

"Not at elevation"

That is not a sentence.

As for water density, then what is the change in density? How much does that effect light? Is it as much as the change in air density?

And no, it doesn't match your argument. Particles in suspension in water =/= air. When looking into more air, it is just that: more air. You're not looking into dust particles in air (though you probably are in small amounts), you're just looking into more air. If you can see further, you're looking back into the dense air. You're looking through more air. This means you're looking through more particles.

Even then, the slight change in density of the water isn't why you can't see further down. It's because the sand under the water in tropical beaches, or wherever, determines the light reflecting off the bottom. White sand = more light = clearer water. Dark sand = less light = less water.

I agree with you that particles in suspension in the air do contribute to how far we see, but if you're seeing further, you're simply going to be looking through more air particles. You might be looking out from a less-dense area, but you're still looking right back into that dense area. And, if we can see further, you're looking through more of both less-dense and more-dense areas.

[totallackey]

"Not at elevation"

That is not a sentence.

Yes it is a sentence. I stated: "Yes, you would be looking through more of the atmoplane. A more clear and less dense atmoplane."

To which you replied:"How would it be more clear and less dense? You might be in a less dense area, but if you're looking further, you're looking right back into that denser area, and more of it."

A three word sentence is the answer: "Not at elevation."

The air clears of heavier particulates the higher you go in altitude(in general). This principle generally applies across the Earth. So, if I rise to a level of 100 meters and there is another object (say a balloon) floating at the end of a line at an altitude of 100 meters and it is 3 miles away from my vantage point, I would have a better chance of seeing it than if we were at ground level, all other things equal.

So yes, I am looking through the same amount of atmoplane from point a to point b, but there is not as much "junk," in the atmoplane between point a to point b at the elevation of 100 meters compared to ground level.

Plus, the atmoplane is less dense at both my vantage point and the direct observation point.

As for water density, then what is the change in density? How much does that effect light? Is it as much as the change in air density?

Please research these answers yourself.

And no, it doesn't match your argument. Particles in suspension in water =/= air. When looking into more air, it is just that: more air. You're not looking into dust particles in air (though you probably are in small amounts), you're just looking into more air. If you can see further, you're looking back into the dense air. You're looking through more air. This means you're looking through more particles.

Wrong, as demonstrated above.

Even then, the slight change in density of the water isn't why you can't see further down. It's because the sand under the water in tropical beaches, or wherever, determines the light reflecting off the bottom. White sand = more light = clearer water. Dark sand = less light = less water.

Okay, whatever...I guess mountain lakes do not count in your estimation.

I agree with you that particles in suspension in the air do contribute to how far we see, but if you're seeing further, you're simply going to be looking through more air particles. You might be looking out from a less-dense area, but you're still looking right back into that dense area. And, if we can see further, you're looking through more of both less-dense and more-dense areas.

Only if you are looking down.

[nickrulercreator]

"Not at elevation"

That is not a sentence.

Yes it is a sentence. I stated: "Yes, you would be looking through more of the atmoplane. A more clear and less dense atmoplane."

To which you replied:"How would it be more clear and less dense? You might be in a less dense area, but if you're looking further, you're looking right back into that denser area, and more of it."

A three word sentence is the answer: "Not at elevation."

The air clears of heavier particulates the higher you go in altitude(in general). This principle generally applies across the Earth. So, if I rise to a level of 100 meters and there is another object (say a balloon) floating at the end of a line at an altitude of 100 meters and it is 3 miles away from my vantage point, I would have a better chance of seeing it than if we were at ground level, all other things equal.

So yes, I am looking through the same amount of atmoplane from point a to point b, but there is not as much "junk," in the atmoplane between point a to point b at the elevation of 100 meters compared to ground level.

Plus, the atmoplane is less dense at both my vantage point and the direct observation point.

As for water density, then what is the change in density? How much does that effect light? Is it as much as the change in air density?

Please research these answers yourself.

And no, it doesn't match your argument. Particles in suspension in water =/= air. When looking into more air, it is just that: more air. You're not looking into dust particles in air (though you probably are in small amounts), you're just looking into more air. If you can see further, you're looking back into the dense air. You're looking through more air. This means you're looking through more particles.

Wrong, as demonstrated above.

Even then, the slight change in density of the water isn't why you can't see further down. It's because the sand under the water in tropical beaches, or wherever, determines the light reflecting off the bottom. White sand = more light = clearer water. Dark sand = less light = less water.

Okay, whatever...I guess mountain lakes do not count in your estimation.

I agree with you that particles in suspension in the air do contribute to how far we see, but if you're seeing further, you're simply going to be looking through more air particles. You might be looking out from a less-dense area, but you're still looking right back into that dense area. And, if we can see further, you're looking through more of both less-dense and more-dense areas.

Only if you are looking down.

1. No, it isn't a sentence. But that doesn't matter. I agree with your example though. Yes, it would be easier to see the balloon. But we're not talking about looking at an object at the same altitude. We're talking about looking back to the horizon line from a higher altitude. Even if you're higher up and in a less dense area, you'd still need to look back into the denser air to see the horizon, as it is below you, in denser air.

2. No, you started the argument involving water density. I shouldn't be responsible for the evidence you need to provide.

3. It's wrong if we're talking about objects at the same altitude. It's not wrong if we're talking about an object, say, the horizon line, that is below us.

4. What about mountain lakes?

5. And we are looking down. You're not going to look horizontally when high up to see the surface of earth. You're looking down.

[totallackey]

1.  I agree with your example though. Yes, it would be easier to see the balloon. But we're not talking about looking at an object at the same altitude. We're talking about looking back to the horizon line from a higher altitude. Even if you're higher up and in a less dense area, you'd still need to look back into the denser air to see the horizon, as it is below you, in denser air.

Really?

I must have missed that dope in the OP!

Care to point point out those restrictions in the OP?

Damn it!!!

I am so sorry...How could I be so fucking careless...oh...wait...what was that?

That shit is NOT in the OP...

Oh cool!

The horizon line also rises as you gain altitude.

2. No, you started the argument involving water density. I shouldn't be responsible for the evidence you need to provide.

I suggest you review the entirety of the conversation.

3. It's wrong if we're talking about objects at the same altitude. It's not wrong if we're talking about an object, say, the horizon line, that is below us.

I suggest you review the entirety of the conversation, commencing with the OP.

4. What about mountain lakes?

I suggest you review the entirety of the conversation.

5. And we are looking down. You're not going to look horizontally when high up to see the surface of earth. You're looking down.

Please quote from somewhere in the OP that specifically states the viewer is required to or only limited to "looking down."

[nickrulercreator]

1.  I agree with your example though. Yes, it would be easier to see the balloon. But we're not talking about looking at an object at the same altitude. We're talking about looking back to the horizon line from a higher altitude. Even if you're higher up and in a less dense area, you'd still need to look back into the denser air to see the horizon, as it is below you, in denser air.

Really?

I must have missed that dope in the OP!

Care to point point out those restrictions in the OP?

Damn it!!!

I am so sorry...How could I be so fucking careless...oh...wait...what was that?

That shit is NOT in the OP...

Oh cool!

The horizon line also rises as you gain altitude.

2. No, you started the argument involving water density. I shouldn't be responsible for the evidence you need to provide.

I suggest you review the entirety of the conversation.

3. It's wrong if we're talking about objects at the same altitude. It's not wrong if we're talking about an object, say, the horizon line, that is below us.

I suggest you review the entirety of the conversation, commencing with the OP.

4. What about mountain lakes?

I suggest you review the entirety of the conversation.

5. And we are looking down. You're not going to look horizontally when high up to see the surface of earth. You're looking down.

Please quote from somewhere in the OP that specifically states the viewer is required to or only limited to "looking down."

1. Of course he/she is talking about the horzion, or an object on the ground. Who would ever talk about seeing something else in the air? There's nothing in the air besides birds, planes, clouds, and more air. Don't act stupid, you know very well what OP was talking about. And no, the horizon line does not also increase. That has been debunked: https://www.metabunk.org/how-to-show-the-horizon-is-below-eye-level-using-actual-eyes.t8845/ and http://embracetheball.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-horizon-always-rises-to-eye-level.html and http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aisuqNIzXCs and https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/flat-earth-folloies-horizon-always.html

2. I just did. You first made this claim:

But you'd be looking through even more atmosphere then, if you can see further.

Yes, you would be looking through more of the atmoplane. A more clear and less dense atmoplane.

I go to the East River in New York. I look down into the water and can see a foot. I go to a mountain lake in the Sierra Nevada, I look down and can see twenty feet to the bottom.

3. My point isn't wrong. I didn't reference the content of the thread in my 3rd point. If you think I did in some way, go back to #1 of this reply.

4. Please be more specific. Stop repeating yourself. Clarify. What about this entire conversation do you want me to go back and look at? You were the first to make the claim involving anything about water.

5. Again, #1. It's illogical to think OP was talking about looking at other objects in the sky. If, OP, you did mean this, please correct me.

[totallackey]

1. Of course he/she is talking about the horzion, or an object on the ground. Who would ever talk about seeing something else in the air? There's nothing in the air besides birds, planes, clouds, and more air. Don't act stupid, you know very well what OP was talking about.

Please ask the OP what he/she or was writing about. Until then, I dismiss your entire presence and arguments in thread.

And no, the horizon line does not also increase. That has been debunked: https://www.metabunk.org/how-to-show-the-horizon-is-below-eye-level-using-actual-eyes.t8845/ and http://embracetheball.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-horizon-always-rises-to-eye-level.html and http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aisuqNIzXCs and https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/flat-earth-folloies-horizon-always.html

All of these state, if you notice the "horizon does not rise to eye-level."

Since I did not make a claim the horizon rises to eye level, your debunk is also dismissed.

2. I just did. You first made this claim:

Yes, you would be looking through more of the atmoplane. A more clear and less dense atmoplane.

I go to the East River in New York. I look down into the water and can see a foot. I go to a mountain lake in the Sierra Nevada, I look down and can see twenty feet to the bottom.

My statement about water did not include any words stating or referencing density.

You were the one who first brought up the topic of water density.

3. My point isn't wrong. I didn't reference the content of the thread in my 3rd point. If you think I did in some way, go back to #1 of this reply.

I suggest you review the thread for clarity.

4. Please be more specific. Stop repeating yourself. Clarify. What about this entire conversation do you want me to go back and look at? You were the first to make the claim involving anything about water.

I suggest you review the thread for clarity.

5. Again, #1. It's illogical to think OP was talking about looking at other objects in the sky. If, OP, you did mean this, please correct me.

It probably would have been more expeditious and efficient for you to have asked for clarity from the OP to begin with than to have engaged me in any sort of discussion about the OP.

Remember, assumptions just don't cut it...

[nickrulercreator]

1. Of course he/she is talking about the horzion, or an object on the ground. Who would ever talk about seeing something else in the air? There's nothing in the air besides birds, planes, clouds, and more air. Don't act stupid, you know very well what OP was talking about.

Please ask the OP what he/she or was writing about. Until then, I dismiss your entire presence and arguments in thread.

And no, the horizon line does not also increase. That has been debunked: https://www.metabunk.org/how-to-show-the-horizon-is-below-eye-level-using-actual-eyes.t8845/ and http://embracetheball.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-horizon-always-rises-to-eye-level.html and http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aisuqNIzXCs and https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/flat-earth-folloies-horizon-always.html

All of these state, if you notice the "horizon does not rise to eye-level."

Since I did not make a claim the horizon rises to eye level, your debunk is also dismissed.

2. I just did. You first made this claim:

Yes, you would be looking through more of the atmoplane. A more clear and less dense atmoplane.

I go to the East River in New York. I look down into the water and can see a foot. I go to a mountain lake in the Sierra Nevada, I look down and can see twenty feet to the bottom.

My statement about water did not include any words stating or referencing density.

You were the one who first brought up the topic of water density.

3. My point isn't wrong. I didn't reference the content of the thread in my 3rd point. If you think I did in some way, go back to #1 of this reply.

I suggest you review the thread for clarity.

4. Please be more specific. Stop repeating yourself. Clarify. What about this entire conversation do you want me to go back and look at? You were the first to make the claim involving anything about water.

I suggest you review the thread for clarity.

5. Again, #1. It's illogical to think OP was talking about looking at other objects in the sky. If, OP, you did mean this, please correct me.

It probably would have been more expeditious and efficient for you to have asked for clarity from the OP to begin with than to have engaged me in any sort of discussion about the OP.

Remember, assumptions just don't cut it...

1. I asked OP in the same reply. But, of course you dismiss them. Why not argue with the logic? And yes, I know you didn't state that the horizon rises to eye level, but they still deal with the same claim. The horizon doesn't rise. It drops. All of my links show this through experimentation, or math, or simulations, etc. Don't dismiss it. What's your evidence that it rises? Have you done the math? Have you done anything to confirm it?

2. I know you didn't bring up density when talking about water. But, in your first post on this thread, you mentioned air density. Through logical thinking, it's easy to deduce why you brought up water. If I was wrong, please correct me. I still don't understand why you brought up water in the first place, as looking through more water involves the sand at the bottom, and how clean the water is.

3. Stop repeating yourself. Explain yourself. Don't make me do your work.

4. Read number 3. I'm not replying to anything more about looking through the thread if you're going into an endless loop. Don't be an asshole.

5. Again, I asked OP. I engaged with you because, almost certainly, OP is not talking about other objects in air. IDK if OP will ever reply, but if he doesn't, why don't we just go along with the logical scenario of looking down at the horizon and surface of Earth, not at other objects in the air at the same altitude. I already agreed with you that you will see objects further if you and the other object are both at the same altitude, and you're at a high altitude.

[totallackey]

1. I asked OP in the same reply. But, of course you dismiss them. Why not argue with the logic? And yes, I know you didn't state that the horizon rises to eye level, but they still deal with the same claim. The horizon doesn't rise. It drops. All of my links show this through experimentation, or math, or simulations, etc. Don't dismiss it. What's your evidence that it rises? Have you done the math? Have you done anything to confirm it?

2. I know you didn't bring up density when talking about water. But, in your first post on this thread, you mentioned air density. Through logical thinking, it's easy to deduce why you brought up water. If I was wrong, please correct me. I still don't understand why you brought up water in the first place, as looking through more water involves the sand at the bottom, and how clean the water is.

3. Stop repeating yourself. Explain yourself. Don't make me do your work.

4. Read number 3. I'm not replying to anything more about looking through the thread if you're going into an endless loop. Don't be an asshole.

5. Again, I asked OP. I engaged with you because, almost certainly, OP is not talking about other objects in air. IDK if OP will ever reply, but if he doesn't, why don't we just go along with the logical scenario of looking down at the horizon and surface of Earth, not at other objects in the air at the same altitude. I already agreed with you that you will see objects further if you and the other object are both at the same altitude, and you're at a high altitude.

Okay, we agree that you will see further the higher you are in altitude!

That is fantastic!

Have a great day!


Buh bye!

[nickrulercreator]

1. I asked OP in the same reply. But, of course you dismiss them. Why not argue with the logic? And yes, I know you didn't state that the horizon rises to eye level, but they still deal with the same claim. The horizon doesn't rise. It drops. All of my links show this through experimentation, or math, or simulations, etc. Don't dismiss it. What's your evidence that it rises? Have you done the math? Have you done anything to confirm it?

2. I know you didn't bring up density when talking about water. But, in your first post on this thread, you mentioned air density. Through logical thinking, it's easy to deduce why you brought up water. If I was wrong, please correct me. I still don't understand why you brought up water in the first place, as looking through more water involves the sand at the bottom, and how clean the water is.

3. Stop repeating yourself. Explain yourself. Don't make me do your work.

4. Read number 3. I'm not replying to anything more about looking through the thread if you're going into an endless loop. Don't be an asshole.

5. Again, I asked OP. I engaged with you because, almost certainly, OP is not talking about other objects in air. IDK if OP will ever reply, but if he doesn't, why don't we just go along with the logical scenario of looking down at the horizon and surface of Earth, not at other objects in the air at the same altitude. I already agreed with you that you will see objects further if you and the other object are both at the same altitude, and you're at a high altitude.

Okay, we agree that you will see further the higher you are in altitude!

That is fantastic!

Have a great day!


Buh bye!

What? Yes and no. Yes, you can see further at higher altitudes IF you look at objects of the same altitude. But, when looking down at the surface or horizon, like a normal person, you can't. Despite your presence in a less-dense area, you'd still be looking back into MORE of a denser area.