*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11077
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2019, 12:37:15 PM »
It's wildly unclear what the "basics" may be under the Flat Earth paradigm;
That's ok, we're not talking about FET, merely about you forgetting that air exists. It exists regardless of the shape of the Earth.

I never said, "I can see stars therefore visibility on the Earth is perfect". I merely stated that I can see Polaris on or near the horizon, meaning through all of the atmospheric murkiness that is near earth.
Remember, lying usually makes you less credible, not more.

You were not talking about any "atmospheric murkiness". You were trying to justify your claim that The 'limit on how far light can travel' thing doesn't work. But, if we keep context in mind, it blatantly does work. Because air exists, and until you attempted to ignore context, we were talking about visibility on Earth.

Yet you can see the sun and moon set. ???
Once again, you will not be able to make much headway here until you've understood the properties of light under FET. The Sun's and Moon's light go through much less atmolayer than that reflected from the far-away objects you so desire to see. Of course, even if they didn't, we haven't even started to consider EA yet. And, surprise surprise, that would also be a significant obstacle to what you propose.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 12:45:37 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2019, 11:21:28 PM »
It's wildly unclear what the "basics" may be under the Flat Earth paradigm;
That's ok, we're not talking about FET, merely about you forgetting that air exists. It exists regardless of the shape of the Earth.

And here I was thinking we were talking about FET, being the flat earth society and all. You seem to have forgotten that there are varied ways that FET claims that light travels through air.

I never said, "I can see stars therefore visibility on the Earth is perfect". I merely stated that I can see Polaris on or near the horizon, meaning through all of the atmospheric murkiness that is near earth.

Remember, lying usually makes you less credible, not more.

Remember, accusing someone of being a liar because your perspective may be different than someone elses makes your point of view less credible, not more.

You were not talking about any "atmospheric murkiness". You were trying to justify your claim that The 'limit on how far light can travel' thing doesn't work. But, if we keep context in mind, it blatantly does work. Because air exists, and until you attempted to ignore context, we were talking about visibility on Earth.

And so we are talking about visibility on earth. And FET has varied notions on how that works. Bendy light is one. It all depends on who you ask. So it's seemingly not as straight forward as you would pretend; air on earth = X visibility.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11077
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2019, 08:00:24 AM »
And here I was thinking we were talking about FET, being the flat earth society and all.
Yes, that tends to be a convenient excuse when people double down on their errors - they over-focus on unrelated factors, because they hope the other person won't spot their irrelevancy, thus gaining them some ground. "Oh, we're talking about FET so I can forget that my argument would damage both models equally." Silly stack, you know better than that.

Remember, accusing someone of being a liar because your perspective may be different than someone elses
That's okay, I offerred a refutation and backed my position with a direct quote of you saying what I claim you said. You did not provide any evidence, focusing instead on simple contradiction. That's where the credibility comes in. ;)

This is a simple issue. We have a direct quote of you saying something you're now agreeing was dumb. You either made a mistake previously (in which case you'd be retracting your claim and moving on), you misspoke and make yourself accidentally sound like you were saying the dumb thing (in which case you'd offer a simple clarification of your meaning that doesn't directly contradict the phrasing you used previously), or you're pretending that you previously did not say the thing that you're now agreeing was dumb (in which case you'd be doing, well, exactly what you're doing right now). There isn't really much scope for "perspective" in a quote like the one you've offerred.

And so we are talking about visibility on earth.
Thank you for the admission. We're finally making some progress.

And FET has varied notions on how that works
Which is why it's wondrous that the air's existence is not in any way connected to FET, as previously pointed out. You don't have to pick an FE model (or even pick between FE or RE) to know that the atmolayer/atmosphere is a thing, and that comparing the visibility of stars to the visibility of earthly objects is a stupid idea.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2019, 08:08:30 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2019, 09:50:18 AM »
And here I was thinking we were talking about FET, being the flat earth society and all.

Yes, that tends to be a convenient excuse when people double down on their errors - they over-focus on unrelated factors, because they hope the other person won't spot their irrelevancy, thus gaining them some ground. "Oh, we're talking about FET so I can forget that my argument would damage both models equally." Silly stack, you know better than that.

Oh silly Pete. We are talking of Flat Earth so, gosh, that overarching notion does seem at least halfway relevant. Why should I care about damage to either model, when, in fact, we're all about seeking truth, right?

Remember, accusing someone of being a liar because your perspective may be different than someone elses
That's okay, I offerred a refutation and backed my position with a direct quote of you saying what I claim you said. You did not provide any evidence, focusing instead on simple contradiction. That's where the credibility comes in. ;)

This is a simple issue. We have a direct quote of you saying something you're now agreeing was dumb.

Which was?

You either made a mistake previously (in which case you'd be retracting your claim and moving on), you misspoke and make yourself accidentally sound like you were saying the dumb thing (in which case you'd offer a simple clarification of your meaning that doesn't directly contradict the phrasing you used previously), or you're pretending that you previously did not say the thing that you're now agreeing was dumb (in which case you'd be doing, well, exactly what you're doing right now). There isn't really much scope for "perspective" in a quote like the one you've offerred.

A lot of words. Point?

And so we are talking about visibility on earth.

Thank you for the admission. We're finally making some progress.

No, thank you. It's a varied beast in the pantheon of FET.  Thank you for acknowledging that.

And FET has varied notions on how that works
Which is why it's wondrous that the air's existence is not in any way connected to FET, as previously pointed out. You don't have to pick an FE model (or even pick between FE or RE) to know that the atmolayer/atmosphere is a thing, and that comparing the visibility of stars to the visibility of earthly objects is a stupid idea.

The visibility of stars (Sun and Moon) to the visibility of earthly objects through the atmolayer/atmosphere is a 'thing'. I agree. So it's equally wondrous that much of the explanations around here regarding how things like sunsets and sunrises work on a Flat Earth are 'projections on the atmolayer' or maybe bendy EA dark energy or some such. So it's kind of hard to parse exactly where 'air' is just a thing when it comes to FET.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11077
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2019, 12:13:02 PM »
We are talking of Flat Earth so, gosh, that overarching notion does seem at least halfway relevant.
Well, no. I already demonstrated that it doesn't, and why it doesn't. Simply re-asserting that you feel differently won't help here. A read of Paul Graham's "How to Disagree" may help you understand this and perform better in the future.

Why should I care about damage to either model, when, in fact, we're all about seeking truth, right?
Because if you assume that the impossible is the case, your conclusion won't be very useful for establishing any meaningful truth. Sure, you can still shuffle logical arguments within that space, but that's not really the subject of this board.

Which was?
Just scroll up. You can do it. Reading may seem hard at first, but if you apply yourself, you'll get there in no time.

A lot of words. Point?
I'm sure you can make it through them, it's only two sentences. If you really can't read that much, perhaps an online forum simply isn't a good medium for you?

But in short, the point is that I'd prefer if in the future you could avoid deliberately* misinforming newcomers in the upper fora. As long as it's not a pattern I don't mind simply exposing it, but I do need to make sure it remains not a pattern.

* - as per my previous explanation, if this wasn't deliberate on your part, you had plenty of opportunities to simply rectify your error. You chose not to, and instead you doubled down, thus establishing your intent beyond reasonable doubt.

The visibility of stars (Sun and Moon) to the visibility of earthly objects through the atmolayer/atmosphere is a 'thing'. I agree. So it's equally wondrous that much of the explanations around here regarding how things like sunsets and sunrises work on a Flat Earth are 'projections on the atmolayer' or maybe bendy EA dark energy or some such. So it's kind of hard to parse exactly where 'air' is just a thing when it comes to FET.
I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the mainstream FET model, or any alternative models you wish to discuss, prior to debating them online. If after reading our documentation (beware, it contains words) you have questions about how it works, you can start a thread to simply ask a question - you don't have to jump right into a debate with whatever assumption you made up to patch the holes in your understanding.

You really can't expect to successfully use your ignorance as an excuse for blabbering nonsense.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2019, 12:31:50 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2019, 10:47:50 PM »
The visibility of stars (Sun and Moon) to the visibility of earthly objects through the atmolayer/atmosphere is a 'thing'. I agree. So it's equally wondrous that much of the explanations around here regarding how things like sunsets and sunrises work on a Flat Earth are 'projections on the atmolayer' or maybe bendy EA dark energy or some such. So it's kind of hard to parse exactly where 'air' is just a thing when it comes to FET.
I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the mainstream FET model, or any alternative models you wish to discuss, prior to debating them online.

What might the mainstream FET model be? There's a dome, no dome. There's a mono-pole, bi-pole, and even an infinite model. There's an accelerating upward versus a stationary version. There's a 700 mile, 3000 mile, 6000 mile to unknown distance of the sun and moon, as well as projections on the dome or 'atmoplane'. There's EA versus perspective versus atmospheric magnification. There's scriptural versus secular. The list goes on. That's my point, FET is so varied that it seems cavalier to simply say something cannot be observed because of air. It seems far more mixed, varied, and complicated than that.

You really can't expect to successfully use your ignorance as an excuse for blabbering nonsense.

I would argue that you can't really expect to successfully use your arrogant snarkiness as the sole means for attempting to make a point.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11077
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2019, 04:45:15 PM »
What might the mainstream FET model be?
My suggestion would be for you to find this out before making thousands of posts on how you vehemently disagree with that model. To me, it seems strange that you can disagree with something you can't identify, or at least that you can feel comfortable with openly admitting it.

The following suggestion was completely heartfelt and sincere, and I'm putting it out again for your consideration:

I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the mainstream FET model, or any alternative models you wish to discuss, prior to debating them online. If after reading our documentation (beware, it contains words) you have questions about how it works, you can start a thread to simply ask a question - you don't have to jump right into a debate with whatever assumption you made up to patch the holes in your understanding.

It also doesn't particularly bother me that there are other groups making claims that conflict our own, or even that you may find individuals here who don't go along with the mainstream. They're welcome to make those claims if they want to, and they might even convince the majority and become the mainstream in due time. You're also welcome to approach them directly if it's their views that you have beef with.

But you seem to expect that we'll take responsibility for every person on the Internet that claims to be a Flat Earther. I hope you can understand that, much like I don't expect you to take responsibility for RE'ers who can't tell the difference between velocity and acceleration, it would be moronic to hold us responsible for other randos on the Internet. Don't do moronic things, they don't make you look smart.

I would argue that you can't really expect to successfully use your arrogant snarkiness as the sole means for attempting to make a point.
You see snark where there isn't any (well, okay, residual amounts), and you pretending that my point hasn't been explicitly spelled out and backed up is a charade I won't spend much time worrying about. Here it is, spelled out again, just so you can continue to pretend that I'm not saying it for the nth time:

It sincerely baffles me that you'd say something dumb, and then instead of just backing off, you'd try to excuse yourself by loudly proclaiming that you have no idea what you're arguing against. If you knowingly lack background knowledge, you should sort that out before presenting an argument. That's just my take on things. Perhaps you find joy in the "hur hur other tribe dumb" level of debate. If that's the case, I strongly suggest you take it to Metabunk instead of here.

Finally, let me once again invite you to read Graham's short essay. If you take it to heart, it'll make you a much happier (and simultaneously much more useful) person!
« Last Edit: December 21, 2019, 05:02:14 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2019, 02:37:45 PM »
I think the OP's question is valid and no on the FE side has said anything meaningful in response.  When the sun/moon are setting on a flat earth or round, you are seeing them through thousands of miles of atmos(whatever).  One of the issues with FET is we can never know just how many miles of atmos(whatever) we are viewing them through because the distance from the earth's surface to these objects has not been definitely determined.  Neither has the thickness of the atmos(whatever).

However, on the RE the sun's light travels through approximately 2000 miles of atmosphere at sunset.  Same can be said for the moon, Polaris or any other off-earth object viewed at the horizon.  So, 350 miles is not the limit to how far light can travel though air.  In fact, objects such as Polaris, despite the light reaching us being minuscule, can be seen very clearly to those that can see it on or close to the horizon suggesting light can probably travel much more than 2000 miles through air.

On a round earth there is an obvious reason why Everest cannot bee seen 3,000 miles away.  On the FE, it is not so obvious.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2019, 07:49:47 PM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11077
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2019, 03:19:47 PM »
When the sun/moon are setting on a flat earth or round, you are seeing them through thousands of miles of atmos(whatever)
This assumption continues to be incorrect, no matter how many times you lot restate it.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2019, 04:58:42 PM »
When the sun/moon are setting on a flat earth or round, you are seeing them through thousands of miles of atmos(whatever)
This assumption continues to be incorrect, no matter how many times you lot restate it.
Well, it is certainly true for the round earth.  Would you care to elucidate for us regarding the situation on the FE?
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11077
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2019, 06:25:10 PM »
Well, it is certainly true for the round earth.
Really? Thousands of miles of atmosphere? Your alternative RE model must be funky.

Would you care to elucidate for us regarding the situation on the FE?
You are expected to have familiarised yourself with the basics before joining the discussion in the upper fora.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2019, 07:21:33 PM »
Well, it is certainly true for the round earth.
Really? Thousands of miles of atmosphere? Your alternative RE model must be funky.
How so?  If we assume a significant air mass extending vertically up to 60 miles then at sea level looking towards the horizon (~90 degrees from vertical) to see a sunset you are looking through roughly 38 times that, or about 2,280 miles of atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(astronomy)#Interpolative_formulas

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosphere.html
Quote
... the thickness of the atmosphere is about 60 miles.


Would you care to elucidate for us regarding the situation on the FE?
You are expected to have familiarised yourself with the basics before joining the discussion in the upper fora.
I'll go look in the wiki then, seeing as how you are not willing to be helpful.

Edit:  Despite Pete's suggestion to "familiarise" myself I could find no direct information about this in the wiki.  The best I can surmise from what is there is that in the FE view the sunlight would be coming through about 120 miles of significant atmosphere at sunset.  But this is not taking into account EA and other bendy light hypotheses.  The wiki gives no way to apply these to the situation.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2019, 07:44:59 PM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2019, 11:42:17 PM »
I don't care about your opinions about the government to be clear, just the physical theories.

You first chose to put forward the "trust your government" point.

And if this us the wrong approach, explain what would be a right one.

When you prepare a talk the first thing you do is assessing your audience. If you address someone who created an entire wiki on flat earth, would you expect to just pass by, shout a low quality argument, and then to just shrug at everyone because they don't understand? You're an engineer, so I ask you to self-evaluate the effect of your post in terms of results and time to reward ratio.
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11077
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #33 on: December 23, 2019, 06:52:23 AM »
If we assume a significant air mass extending vertically up to 60 miles
Yes, hilarious. You almost had me there. Is this your new "the Universe is an isolated system" gag? Ignoring your creative geometry, you may want to read the rest of the Wikipedia page you've cited, for example the part that helpfully clarifies that Atmospheric effects on optical transmission can be modelled as if the atmosphere is concentrated in approximately the lower 9 km.

Edit:  Despite Pete's suggestion to "familiarise" myself I could find no direct information about this in the wiki.
Yes, it's largely impossible to synthesise every single scenario in which a base principle can be applied in a body of text. Sometimes, you'll be expected to think. Hopefully to a more coherent level than "40 times the air mass means 40 times the length of atmosphere crossed"
« Last Edit: December 23, 2019, 07:59:22 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2019, 09:01:54 PM »
Okay Pete, you're right on this one.  I got it wrong and I concede.

However, I'm standing by the universe being a isolated system.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline YukiTheGlobeEarther

  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • I'm a firm believer in the Scientific Method
    • View Profile
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #35 on: January 02, 2020, 10:07:08 PM »
Here I am to discuss the flat earth.
I am a religious, aeronautical engineer who's up for a discussion. I am hoping to convince flat earthers that this theory is wrong.

If you can't prove anymore and you're left with the globe, either ask someone for help or accept the fact that the government doesn't lie to you.
This is not a game about pride.

Many YouTube videos (of which some of you aren't proud) try to give proof of the flat earth. Many explanations contradict each other so here I am asking you guys in person.

Starting with:
How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?
Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?

If you say that there's too much air in between: the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.
I mean holy crap, I'm a round earther but not even I will go to the lengths you went to.
Hello! I am a round-earther whom is in grade 10. I am a firm believer in the scientific method and I am open to differentiating opinions. If you are able to change my mind on the Earth shape discussion then so be it! All I need is the tiniest bit of recreatable evidence and we are good to go!

Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2020, 04:05:00 PM »
I don't care about your opinions about the government to be clear, just the physical theories.

You first chose to put forward the "trust your government" point.

And if this us the wrong approach, explain what would be a right one.

When you prepare a talk the first thing you do is assessing your audience. If you address someone who created an entire wiki on flat earth, would you expect to just pass by, shout a low quality argument, and then to just shrug at everyone because they don't understand? You're an engineer, so I ask you to self-evaluate the effect of your post in terms of results and time to reward ratio.

I didn't ask how I should ask questions. Just keep it to the core, don't deviate from the physics please.

Guys I don't see the difference between a sun setting and a building emitting light. Both seen from the same angle through the same kind of atmosphere. Yet the building vanishes. Please explain.

Offline Groit

  • *
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2020, 01:17:14 PM »
In the northern hemisphere, the star Polaris is always visible in the night sky, due to it being almost in line with the Earth's axial tilt.
Viewed from the UK Polaris is around 52 degrees from the horizon, see below:



At the same time from Dimbokro in Africa which is closer to the equator, the same star Polaris is around 7 degrees above the horizon, see below:



So, how do you explain this on a flat Earth?

Offline Nexius

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2020, 01:29:42 PM »
You're taking the wrong approach, anyway:

FE is a proven theory and FEs do understand that if governments are lying, is because there's a good reason for that. Perspective denies seeing what you mention. Cities are highly illuminated and that's a possible reason for the effect that you mention (but that you don't prove or provide evidence)

I don't understand why everyone is talking about "perspective." It has nothing to do with visibility of objects over the horizon whatsoever. If a ship is going over the horizon and the bottom starts to disappear, it's not because of perspective, because the place where you viewing from has a way larger effect than perspective.

Offline Nexius

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2020, 01:56:09 PM »
How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia?

Because there is a limit to how far light can travel through the air. That distance is above the upper limit of the number of miles that light can travel through the atmosphere.

Do you mind linking the source of where you got that from? Because unlike other waves such as sound waves, light waves travel in a vacuum, so they cannot be interrupted by a so called "limit." If there was such a limit, then how can we see stars that are billions of miles away from us? The reason we can't see mount everest is because of curvature, as well as clouds, mist etc.