[Pete Svarrior]

OK, let's review;

Let's not. You said nothing that AATW hasn't already said, and I'm not a fan of wasting time. Please either back up or retract your claim that you posess X-ray vision.

Semantics again.

Not at all. I was pretty sure this is what you meant (in which case it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but at least it made some parsable sense), until the moment you explicitly stated that "this is not what is being talked about". I can't resolve this contradiction for you - you're gonna have to make up your mind. Either you are talking about things you can see above the horizon, or "this is not what is being talked about". Please choose.

Though I must say I find it funny that you take an issue with people expecting that your writing has meaning (semantics).

Once again:

If you choose to misrepresent the guy's argument, his argument sure is going to souind silly; but do you think you'll have much luck convincing him of your views if you open your argument with such an obvious strawman?

[AATW]

I no longer think I understand his argument. I have provided a diagram with the RE explanation of horizon and seeing distant buildings or part of them.
If his argument is about limits of vision then I don't understand how you can see the distant building at all.
As I said, a diagram to explain what he thinks is going on would help.

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't want to make his argument for him (it's highly likely that we wouldn't agree on the specifics, so I have to leave that part to him), but it is crucial to keep in mind that visibility depends on a plethora of conditions.

Regardless of the actual reason for the horizon being as far as we can see (EA, perspective, atmospheric retraction, the Earth being round), the distinction between the horizon and things that aren't the horizon is essential.

Think of it that way: if you wanted to argue that the sinking ship effect proves that the Earth is round and I snapped back with "a-ha, but I can still see the mast, ergo I can see the boat, ergo it's not hidden at all!" you'd rightly lambast me for being insincere in my arguments. Tumeni is doing precisely that.

[Tumeni]

Please either back up or retract your claim that you possess X-ray vision.

I didn't claim that. You said that I did. Indulge us all, and tell us where you assert that I claimed it. Please.

[Pete Svarrior]

I didn't claim that.

But of course you did.

You were unclear at first:

... but I/we can see things BEYOND the horizon.

But when I suggested you're referring to objects located above the horizon, you helpfully clarified:

What you're talking about it objects which are above the horizon.

No, that's not what is being talked about.

So, we know that you claim to be able to see things BEYOND (sic) the horizon, and you are not talking about things above the horizon (or at least "it is not being talked about", in case there's a distinction).

Please substantiate or retract. I really hope you weren't trying to derail the thread with this nonsense.

[Tumeni]

Why are you still taking issue with reply #12, when I've posted #14, 17 and 19, all to expand on and clarify it, specifically in response to what you said in #13 and subsequent replies?

[Iceman]

This thread has devolved to a painful level. If you watched a 'sinking ship' to the point where all you saw was the mast, regardless of your world view, you would know you were seeing something beyond the horizon - whatever 'horizon' means in your world view. The boat's hull has disappeared behind it, but the mast is still visible, but since we know the mast is part of that boat we watched disappear, the mast is clearly beyond what we perceive as the horizon.

In RE we argue that it is the curved surface of the water that is obstructing view of the bottom of the boat, in FE, its perspective, attack angle, angular resolution, EA, a fat morgana - whatever.

I'm not sure how we got to the point where we're arguing about the definition of 'beyond'

[Pete Svarrior]

Why are you still taking issue with reply #12, when I've posted #14, 17 and 19, all to expand on and clarify it, specifically in response to what you said in #13 and subsequent replies?

Without spending too much time tracking down the random post numbers you're spewing out (you know how to use links and quotes): Because you keep contradicting yourself; and because your non-x-ray-vision argument is irrelevant to the thread.

So: are you wasting our time by claiming x-ray vision, or are you wasting our time with irrelevant remarks? Please make up your mind.

I'm not sure how we got to the point where we're arguing about the definition of 'beyond'

Well, any of you have the option of returning to arguing the original point instead of trying to redefine the word.

[Tumeni]

OK, I wrote three replies after the one you take issue with, clarifying what I took you and others to mean at that point, and clarifying what I meant. But you still focus on the reply before them, and seem to want to ignore the clarification. You've been asked to draw what you mean, but you've declined thus far.

I specified which replies they were, but you appear not to want to read them unless I link to them. You call them "random", but they are the actual reply numbers for those replies which I wrote. Not selected at random.

Beyond = physically farther away than.
Horizon = that physical point at which the land or sea appears to meet the sky
Above the horizon = 1. A physical point directly above that specified above, or
2. That which is in the observer's field of view nearer, above or beyond that physical point

Clear?

[Pete Svarrior]

Clear?

No, by design on your part.

Look, Tumeni, this is simple. Option number 1 or option number 2? I only ask to find out whether you've completely lost it, or whether you deliberately tried to detail this thread.

[Tumeni]

Look, I've told you why I said what I said, I expanded on it and clarified it, telling everyone exactly which replies to look at to see such clarification.

You've indicated that you've deliberately not looked at my reply in one instance, and that you aren't willing to look at the others unless I link to them, even though the thread is barely two pages.

[Pete Svarrior]

Look, I've told you why I said what I said, I expanded on it and clarified it, telling everyone exactly which replies to look at to see such clarification.

Okay, if you don't wish to explain which of the two ways of wasting our time you're engaging in, then I'll just politely ask that you stop doing either.

If you're claiming to have x-ray vision, do so in CN. If you're derailing the thread with obvious strawman arguments, ideally don't do it anywhere.

[Tumeni]

Look, I've told you why I said what I said, I expanded on it and clarified it, telling everyone exactly which replies to look at to see such clarification.

Okay, if you don't wish to explain which of the two ways of wasting our time you're engaging in, then I'll just politely ask that you stop doing either.

If you're claiming to have x-ray vision, do so in CN. If you're derailing the thread with obvious strawman arguments, ideally don't do it anywhere.

Half of my replies are simply responding to you, and stating what I've said previously and why.

If you weren't so adamant that I claimed something that I didn't even mention ...

[Iceman]

But Pete, you're the one who made the claim that the only way to see anything beyond the horizon is to see through the earth. A claim that is completely untrue given the examples listed above and the diagrams that accompanied them.

Everything in this thread after reply #6, when that re-framed the discussion, has been a bit of a trainwreck :s

[AATW]

Maybe this helps if we're going to play semantic games



I would say "on", rather than "above", but whatever.

And you could apparently see curvature from Concorde if you had a decent viewing angle, which had a cruising altitude of 60,000 feet, dragging this back kicking and screaming to the OP.

[Pete Svarrior]

But Pete, you're the one who made the claim that the only way to see anything beyond the horizon is to see through the earth. A claim that is completely untrue

In the context of this discussion, there is only one meaning of "beyond" that makes sense, and it is not the meaning the RE crowd keeps trying to force into this conversation. You're falling for a classic Tumeni troll. He's due a vacation soon anyway, but we've gotta give him his last chance before that happens. Until then, please just don't feed him.

In the meantime: You're responding to a specific poster who made a pretty specific claim. Changing the meaning of his words on him is a no-go, even if you don't like the way he chose his words. It doesn't matter how many diagrams you draw to demonstrate that your choice of words is better - it's still not the meaning intended in this discussion. If you continue doubling down on redefining the term, we'll continue getting absolutely nowhere.

If someone tells you you can't see past the horizon, it's pretty obvious that he's not talking about the things that are farther away from you than the horizon that you can see. Could it have been worded better? Yes. Should you have any difficulty understanding what he actually said? No.

Everything in this thread after reply #6, when that re-framed the discussion, has been a bit of a trainwreck :s

I agree, this has been mismanaged. I tried engaging Tumeni in discussion when I should have slapped him with a large trout and kicked him down to AR. I should have known better and I'll own up to that.

[AATW]

If someone tells you you can't see past the horizon, it's pretty obvious that he's not talking about the things that are farther away from you than the horizon that you can see.

The original quote is

The horizon is an optical illusion, the "edge" of nothing but our vision

So yeah, that's exactly what I took it to mean. If the horizon is the edge of our vision then how can we see things which are further than it?
I'm happy to concede I'm not understanding him, but I have suggested a diagram would help and none has been provided.

(I also agree that much of this should be split into a separate thread about what the horizon actually is)

[Pete Svarrior]

So yeah, that's exactly what I took it to mean. If the horizon is the edge of our vision then how can we see things which are further than it?

Well, it very much is an edge of our vision, regardless of the model you choose. Much like with any other edge that obstructs our vision, it creates a blind spot. It doesn't magically nullify our vision.

When you encounter a blind corner while driving your vehicle, it doesn't mean that you absolutely cannot see further than that corner. It just means that you can't see beyond it.

I'm happy to concede I'm not understanding him, but I have suggested a diagram would help and none has been provided.

You can't see purple.



That's literally all there is to that part of the claim.

[AATW]

That's the RE claim (actually you can't see anything below the red line, but let's not split hairs), I'm pretty sure he's FE though so in the context of a FE I'm not clear what he means.

[Pete Svarrior]

That's the RE claim

Well, yes, I drew it on a RE diagram to avoid further confusion.

And yes, it really was that simple and obvious. This is why I'm particularly grumpy with people who fell for Tumeni's diversion here (myself included).

(actually you can't see anything below the red line, but let's not split hairs)

Yes - hence my multiple references to anything "not above the horizon".

I'm pretty sure he's FE though so in the context of a FE I'm not clear what he means.

I don't want to speak for him regarding the reason (as stated before, I have a hunch his views differ from mine). In the EA model, the effect is identical - you could draw the Earth's surface as straight, and your line of sight as curved, but the semantics behind the diagrams would be identical.