[Gonzo]

I spent the first 18 years of my life in Plymouth, UK, and would often see exactly that type of image with my own eyes through my binoculars. Especially Royal Navy vessels, and those of other nations, manoeuvering for Flag Officer Sea Training exercises just offshore. Anyone used to living by the coast and ship-watching would recognise that picture. I can take similar pictures of the Eddystone lighthouse too, approximately 12 miles offshore from Plymouth. It has stump next to it, the remnants of the previous lighthouse (Smeaton's Tower) that now stands on the promanade on Plymouth Hoe, and depending on one's height above sea level, the stump is either visible or not. It's a great test.

Seeing a 'crisp' or 'sharp', or whatever other words anyone wants to use, horizon is not unusual from such a location.

[stack]

Am guessing you didnt take that pic but you are accepting it as face value. Its one of the most faked images I have seen - cant you see that? Or does your indoctrinated mind not allow you to? In fact the more I look at it the more my sides split.
Its too close up to be real. If the photographer was that close there wouldnt be a curve. Its a joke. Theres plenty others like this but ask anyone who has tried to film 'over the horizon' how difficult it is.

I couldn't tell you whether it's fake or real, I didn't take it. But what makes you sure it's fake? I don't understand "Its too close up to be real." Couldn't the photographer have used a zoom lens?

[AATW]

Under RE assumptions you will never, in your lived experience, end up in a scenario where the true horizon is clearly visible as a distinct line.

This is simultaneously true and irrelevant.
In RE when looking out to sea you can only see the first few miles of the sea and the reason for that is because it curves away from you. At some point it's that curve which prevents you from seeing more sea, as per my diagram.

Now, the things we've talked about do change the observation from the one you'd get on a perfectly spherical earth with no atmosphere. Of course they do.
Refraction means you can often see a bit further over the curve than you would be able to if we had no atmosphere.
The sea isn't perfectly flat, so waves mean the line isn't perfectly straight.
Atmospheric haze makes the line not perfectly sharp.
All these things are true, but they're all irrelevant. You are generally not looking at the true or geometric horizon, but that is irrelevant.
You are still looking at a physical line, these effects simply change the distance, straightness and clarity of that line.

Even in that zoomed in view above, you can see the waves but it's very clear where the horizon is, there's no gradual fade between sea and sky.

This incorrect. The limits of your perception are none of my concern - you can assist yourself with tooling if you need to.

I have. Your response was, and I quote, "lmao". But my tooling is pretty clear where the horizon line is in that picture just like it's clear where the edges of the sails are:



If you have ideas for other tooling I could use then I'm open to suggestions.

You have yet to post a single photo in which there is no gradual fade between the sea and the sky

My perception and edge detection tool beg to differ on the word "gradual".
Again, the observations aren't going to match the mathematically perfectly model because we don't live in one.

With FE why would there even be a horizon line?

For the same reason as RE

This cannot possibly be true. You know what the RE reason is, the FE reason can't be the same because in FE you have a thousand miles of sea stretching out in front of you.
But you can only see the first few miles, then suddenly it's just sky. I'm struggling to believe that you wouldn't know where to draw a line between sea and sky in any of those images except in the foggy day image. Because in that one you can't see as far as the physical horizon.

My argument is that on a FE the observation would surely always be more like the foggy day image.

This is misguided. You seem to think that these are two different scenarios. They aren't - they're two manifestations of the same phenomenon, to two different extents.

This is simply incorrect. In the foggy day scenario the visibility prevents you from seeing as far as the physical horizon, that's why there is no clear line between sea and sky.
In all the other pictures the line is clear because you're looking at a physical thing. I mean, it's clear to my perception and my tooling. I don't know how to resolve that disagreement other than maybe for you to use some other tooling and show the results. Otherwise we're going to spend all week going "nuh uh", "is too" ad nauseum.

[Pete Svarrior]

I have. Your response was, and I quote, "lmao".

*sigh* Yes, you used a completely irrelevant tool, applied it to a photograph in which the horizon can't be seen, and are strutting around like a pigeon declaring victory. I ran your post through a Portuguese-to-Russian translator, and the results were gibberish. Therefore, your post is gibberish. Science!

Or, in simpler terms: lmao.

If you have ideas for other tooling I could use then I'm open to suggestions.

If you want to assess a colour gradient, I'd start with a colour picker. You'll also want to make sure you choose relevant photographs. You were consistently comparing 2 images throughout the discussion, but then you suddenly switcheroo'd them as part of your "hAhA cHeCkMaTe" zinger. This kind of lack of consistency and discipline is another factor that fucks with the quality of your results.

My perception and edge detection tool beg to differ on the word "gradual".

Your perception contradicts RET. Your choice of tool follows your flawed anti-scientific approach of choosing whatever will reinforce your hypothesis, regardless of validity, rather than test it. Ultimately, it is this approach that prevents you from making a good argument here.

Again, the observations aren't going to match the mathematically perfectly model because we don't live in one.

Irrelevant.

This cannot possibly be true.

On the contrary, it's the only possibility that maintains internal consistency. You rejected it, which is why you're stuck with self-contradictory alternatives.

You know what the RE reason is

Indeed. And you don't. There's the rub.

But you can only see the first few miles, then suddenly it's just sky.

It is not sudden. It's gradual.

I'm struggling to believe that you wouldn't know where to draw a line between sea and sky in any of those images

Well, yes, you do struggle to believe that. In the end of the day, that's what it comes down to - you've decided that your argument is good, and you'll keep repeating it forevermore, citing nothing more than personal incredulity. You lack the self-critical approach needed to break out of this cycle.

In the foggy day scenario the visibility prevents you from seeing as far as the physical horizon, that's why there is no clear line between sea and sky.

This is what happens in both scenarios. You conceded this multiple times when you remarked on the difference between mathematically perfect theory and reality.

In all the other pictures the line is clear because you're looking at a physical thing.

Oh my god, you're so close to a Eureka moment there, but you're so busy ignoring everything that's been said to you.

I don't know how to resolve that disagreement other than maybe for you to use some other tooling and show the results. Otherwise we're going to spend all week going "nuh uh", "is too" ad nauseum.

The only possible resolutions here are that you discard your biased method of presupposing the outcome and actively seeking out anything that sounds like it might prove it, or we both get bored and walk away. I can't force you to learn RET. Only you can choose to do it.

[AATW]

Yes, you used a completely irrelevant tool, applied it to a photograph in which the horizon can't be seen, and are strutting around like a pigeon declaring victory.

You claimed that the horizon line is "blurry and gradual". I'd suggest an edge detection tool is a pretty good test of that assertion.
What's a colour picker going to do other than tell me that the line isn't mathematically perfect? Of course it isn't. But it's not a gradual fade either. Those aren't the only two possibilities. The line between sea and sky is very clear. That line IS the horizon, which I'm defining the way the dictionary does "the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet".

You were consistently comparing 2 images throughout the discussion, but then you suddenly switcheroo'd them

No. The contrast between the two images is obvious and stands. The 3rd image is in addition, not instead of the original comparison. There's no switcheroo, it's additional evidence. It's a further response to the claim that the horizon line is "blurry and gradual". The 3rd image shows that even if you zoom in you still see a very clear distinction between sea and sky, there's no gradual fade between the two. Now, at that scale you see the details of the waves, you see the line isn't perfectly straight. Yes of course there's a difference between reality and a mathematically perfect model. But when visibility allows you see a clear distinction between sea and sky. And the reason for that, according to RE, is because the rest of the sea is hidden by the curve of the earth.

Your perception contradicts RET.

You keep saying that. Can you explain why?

On the contrary, it's the only possibility that maintains internal consistency. You rejected it

I rejected it because in the two models the geometry of the sea is different. That surely means there will be different observations.
Now, having thought about it a bit, I don't think the difference would be as pronounced as I initially imagined, but I don't believe on a FE you'd get the clear line when you zoom in on a horizon which you do in reality.

You know what the RE reason is

Indeed. And you don't. There's the rub.

OK, well I've told you what I think. You tell me what you think. Then maybe we can make some progress.

Well, yes, you do struggle to believe that. In the end of the day, that's what it comes down to - you've decided that your argument is good, and you'll keep repeating it forevermore, citing nothing more than personal incredulity. You lack the self-critical approach needed to break out of this cycle.

I'm citing pictures which show a clear line between sea and sky. All you're doing is looking at 4 fingers and repeatedly saying you see 5. I don't know how to help you with that, the rest of us are all seeing 4. And you keep repeating it too without citing anything at all.

In the foggy day scenario the visibility prevents you from seeing as far as the physical horizon, that's why there is no clear line between sea and sky.

This is what happens in both scenarios. You conceded this multiple times when you remarked on the difference between mathematically perfect theory and reality.

No. There are 3 scenarios.
A foggy day, a mathematically perfect horizon and reality:



There IS a difference between a mathematically perfect horizon and reality, but that's not the same difference as between the reality on a clear day and the reality on a foggy day.
The first difference does change the observation from a perfectly sharp line to an imperfect one, but the line is still very clear.
The second difference is between a horizon you can see and one you can't.
The horizon line you see on a clear day is a physical thing. More sea is out there but it's hidden by the curve of the earth, that's why there's a limit in how much sea you can...see. Ugh. Sorry, terrible English. On a clear day you can see the horizon, that's why there's a clear line. On a foggy day you can't see as far as the horizon, that's why the sea just fades out. Here's a picture of a line of trees I took on a foggy day and again on a clear one. Let's say that left most tree is the horizon where I've drawn the line.
Even on a clear day you might not be able to see the tree perfectly, that's the difference between mathematical model and reality. But on a foggy day you can't even see the tree. That's the difference:



Now, on a FE you're right, you'd never be able to see a clear horizon because there's thousands of miles of sea in front of you. On a RE you would be able to see one. And you can.

you're so busy ignoring everything that's been said to you.

I'm not ignoring you, I'm responding to you. I just happen to believe you are incorrect.

I can't force you to learn RET. Only you can choose to do it.

Well, you can tell me what you think I'm getting wrong about it and correct me.

[SimonC]

Yes, you used a completely irrelevant tool, applied it to a photograph in which the horizon can't be seen, and are strutting around like a pigeon declaring victory.

You claimed that the horizon line is "blurry and gradual". I'd suggest an edge detection tool is a pretty good test of that assertion.
What's a colour picker going to do other than tell me that the line isn't mathematically perfect? Of course it isn't. But it's not a gradual fade either. Those aren't the only two possibilities. The line between sea and sky is very clear. That line IS the horizon, which I'm defining the way the dictionary does "the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet".

You were consistently comparing 2 images throughout the discussion, but then you suddenly switcheroo'd them

No. The contrast between the two images is obvious and stands. The 3rd image is in addition, not instead of the original comparison. There's no switcheroo, it's additional evidence. It's a further response to the claim that the horizon line is "blurry and gradual". The 3rd image shows that even if you zoom in you still see a very clear distinction between sea and sky, there's no gradual fade between the two. Now, at that scale you see the details of the waves, you see the line isn't perfectly straight. Yes of course there's a difference between reality and a mathematically perfect model. But when visibility allows you see a clear distinction between sea and sky. And the reason for that, according to RE, is because the rest of the sea is hidden by the curve of the earth.

Your perception contradicts RET.

You keep saying that. Can you explain why?

On the contrary, it's the only possibility that maintains internal consistency. You rejected it

I rejected it because in the two models the geometry of the sea is different. That surely means there will be different observations.
Now, having thought about it a bit, I don't think the difference would be as pronounced as I initially imagined, but I don't believe on a FE you'd get the clear line when you zoom in on a horizon which you do in reality.

You know what the RE reason is

Indeed. And you don't. There's the rub.

OK, well I've told you what I think. You tell me what you think. Then maybe we can make some progress.

Well, yes, you do struggle to believe that. In the end of the day, that's what it comes down to - you've decided that your argument is good, and you'll keep repeating it forevermore, citing nothing more than personal incredulity. You lack the self-critical approach needed to break out of this cycle.

I'm citing pictures which show a clear line between sea and sky. All you're doing is looking at 4 fingers and repeatedly saying you see 5. I don't know how to help you with that, the rest of us are all seeing 4. And you keep repeating it too without citing anything at all.

In the foggy day scenario the visibility prevents you from seeing as far as the physical horizon, that's why there is no clear line between sea and sky.

This is what happens in both scenarios. You conceded this multiple times when you remarked on the difference between mathematically perfect theory and reality.

No. There are 3 scenarios.
A foggy day, a mathematically perfect horizon and reality:



There IS a difference between a mathematically perfect horizon and reality, but that's not the same difference as between the reality on a clear day and the reality on a foggy day.
The first difference does change the observation from a perfectly sharp line to an imperfect one, but the line is still very clear.
The second difference is between a horizon you can see and one you can't.
The horizon line you see on a clear day is a physical thing. More sea is out there but it's hidden by the curve of the earth, that's why there's a limit in how much sea you can...see. Ugh. Sorry, terrible English. On a clear day you can see the horizon, that's why there's a clear line. On a foggy day you can't see as far as the horizon, that's why the sea just fades out. Here's a picture of a line of trees I took on a foggy day and again on a clear one. Let's say that left most tree is the horizon where I've drawn the line.
Even on a clear day you might not be able to see the tree perfectly, that's the difference between mathematical model and reality. But on a foggy day you can't even see the tree. That's the difference:



Now, on a FE you're right, you'd never be able to see a clear horizon because there's thousands of miles of sea in front of you. On a RE you would be able to see one. And you can.

you're so busy ignoring everything that's been said to you.

I'm not ignoring you, I'm responding to you. I just happen to believe you are incorrect.

I can't force you to learn RET. Only you can choose to do it.

Well, you can tell me what you think I'm getting wrong about it and correct me.

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?

[DuncanDoenitz]

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. 

[Action80]

The line between sea and sky is very clear.

This is just not true at all.

[Gonzo]

Yes it is. It is very often a clear, definite line.

Do you live near the coast?

[AATW]

The line between sea and sky is very clear.

This is just not true at all.

Are you suggesting that in the photos I've posted, or just looking out to sea on a clear day, you wouldn't know where the line between sea and sky is?

[Action80]

Yes it is. It is very often a clear, definite line.

Do you live near the coast?

The line between sea and sky is very clear.

This is just not true at all.

Are you suggesting that in the photos I've posted, or just looking out to sea on a clear day, you wouldn't know where the line between sea and sky is?

Exactly.

Often times it is readily apparent the color shades of water on the surface and the color shades of sky above are so indistinguishable from each other or the reflectivity of the water or sky is so mirror-like, one can never be sure where sky ends and water meet.

It is ludicrous for anyone to claim the color shading of the water or sky (or the reflectivity of the water or sky) at a point over three miles distant from their location is very distinct and different.

[DuncanDoenitz]

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.

[Action80]

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.

[secretagent10]

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.

Is high-altitude footage of the earth “looking flat” good enough conditions, though?

[Action80]

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.

Is high-altitude footage of the earth “looking flat” good enough conditions, though?

Regardless of how far you can see, it doesn't change what I wrote.

How far away the perceived point where "water and sky meet," cannot be precisely determined because you are truly unaware which is which.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Regardless of how far you can see, it doesn't change what I wrote.

How far away the perceived point where "water and sky meet," cannot be precisely determined because you are truly unaware which is which.

On a clear day, you can see it by eye, by telescope or binoculars.  More importantly, and what really pops the bubble of your theory, is that the "imperceptible" point has been used for centuries by mariners  to determine the elevation of celestial objects in order to navigate. 

[Action80]

Regardless of how far you can see, it doesn't change what I wrote.

How far away the perceived point where "water and sky meet," cannot be precisely determined because you are truly unaware which is which.

On a clear day, you can see it by eye, by telescope or binoculars.  More importantly, and what really pops the bubble of your theory, is that the "imperceptible" point has been used for centuries by mariners  to determine the elevation of celestial objects in order to navigate.

The "imperceptible," point is simply a level means and is actually just "close enough." Amazingly, it relies on the point to be a flat figure.

So, thanks for joining the club! Welcome!

FE Wins!

[secretagent10]

So, thanks for joining the club! Welcome!

FE Wins!

I believe you misunderstood.

[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.

[AATW]

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.