*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 680
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2021, 04:34:14 PM »
Look across Lake Michigan from The Michigan side towards Chicago or Milwakee. Some days you can see lights and/or part of the skylines. Some days you cannot. Refraction.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #41 on: February 04, 2021, 04:51:39 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #42 on: February 04, 2021, 04:59:03 PM »

29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

So about 0.04 degrees then?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1236
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #43 on: February 04, 2021, 05:45:22 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #44 on: February 04, 2021, 07:09:15 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1236
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2021, 07:46:10 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

Fascinating.  What about refraction causes the light to be exempt from distortion?

I'm going to have to think for a while to come up with some way of testing this.  Would you accept refraction via water or glass instead of air as a test?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #46 on: February 08, 2021, 12:41:37 PM »
Look across Lake Michigan from The Michigan side towards Chicago or Milwakee. Some days you can see lights and/or part of the skylines. Some days you cannot. Refraction.
When you look across Lake Michigan, the reason you can or cannot see the Chicago skyline is because of fog or the height of the waves.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #47 on: February 08, 2021, 12:43:27 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

Fascinating.  What about refraction causes the light to be exempt from distortion?

I'm going to have to think for a while to come up with some way of testing this.  Would you accept refraction via water or glass instead of air as a test?
There would need to be a test under the same conditions.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1236
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #48 on: February 08, 2021, 02:13:39 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

Fascinating.  What about refraction causes the light to be exempt from distortion?

I'm going to have to think for a while to come up with some way of testing this.  Would you accept refraction via water or glass instead of air as a test?
There would need to be a test under the same conditions.

So you are saying that we need to have an 8 mile long lab to test your theory, which clearly isn't going to happen.

Which makes it not a theory, since we can't actually test it to prove or disprove it either way.

You have an interesting hypothesis then, but no way to prove it.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #49 on: February 08, 2021, 04:51:23 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

Fascinating.  What about refraction causes the light to be exempt from distortion?

I'm going to have to think for a while to come up with some way of testing this.  Would you accept refraction via water or glass instead of air as a test?
There would need to be a test under the same conditions.

So you are saying that we need to have an 8 mile long lab to test your theory, which clearly isn't going to happen.

Which makes it not a theory, since we can't actually test it to prove or disprove it either way.

You have an interesting hypothesis then, but no way to prove it.
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 680
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2021, 05:44:14 PM »
Look across Lake Michigan from The Michigan side towards Chicago or Milwakee. Some days you can see lights and/or part of the skylines. Some days you cannot. Refraction.
When you look across Lake Michigan, the reason you can or cannot see the Chicago skyline is because of fog or the height of the waves.

Waves. On the Great Lakes. Blocking view of a city skyline.

Some big waves can develop on the Great Lakes for sure - unrelated, but check out the info around the "White Hurricane" of 1913 : 35-foot waves!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913

But those are never going to be the reason someone cant see Chicago unless you're standing in the swash zone along the beach. The reason the skyline is transiently visible across that distance is from refractive effects producing a mirage.  Just google "Chicago skyline from Michigan" for some beauty pics and several articles

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1236
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #51 on: February 08, 2021, 06:28:49 PM »
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.


Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #52 on: February 08, 2021, 08:05:21 PM »
Look across Lake Michigan from The Michigan side towards Chicago or Milwakee. Some days you can see lights and/or part of the skylines. Some days you cannot. Refraction.
When you look across Lake Michigan, the reason you can or cannot see the Chicago skyline is because of fog or the height of the waves.

Waves. On the Great Lakes. Blocking view of a city skyline.

Some big waves can develop on the Great Lakes for sure - unrelated, but check out the info around the "White Hurricane" of 1913 : 35-foot waves!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913

But those are never going to be the reason someone cant see Chicago unless you're standing in the swash zone along the beach. The reason the skyline is transiently visible across that distance is from refractive effects producing a mirage.  Just google "Chicago skyline from Michigan" for some beauty pics and several articles
Actually, you write as if I would know nothing about it.

I live quite nearby and enjoy cycling along the southern tip of Lake Michigan from Chicago all the way to St. Joseph, MI.

Waves and swells can certainly block the view of of the city skyline and more often than not, do exactly that. I have no clue what you are writing about and that is due to the fact you have no clue about what you are writing.

As far as the weather is concerned (in the area between Chicago and Southwest Michigan) it is more often than not, cloudy over that area of Lake Michigan.

These are indeed the reasons for the skyline being out of view of observers.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #53 on: February 08, 2021, 08:07:42 PM »
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.
I am aware that lights appear to be shimmer due to refraction, but the light is at its point of origin. Shimmer is NOT refraction.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1236
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #54 on: February 08, 2021, 09:26:42 PM »
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.
I am aware that lights appear to be shimmer due to refraction, but the light is at its point of origin. Shimmer is NOT refraction.

If they only 'appear' to shimmer, what are they really doing?  I don't see anything but statements here with no references or explanations for these claims.

What experiments did you perform to determine that refraction does not cause shimmering?  Or can you reference someone else's to back up your claim?

Just thinking logically, differences in air temperature and pressure cause light to refract, so it seems quite logical that looking at a point light through turbulent atmosphere will make it shimmer and flicker. What else would you expect when you change densities randomly between you and the light source? Who WOULDN'T it shimmer?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #55 on: February 09, 2021, 04:35:00 PM »
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.
I am aware that lights appear to be shimmer due to refraction, but the light is at its point of origin. Shimmer is NOT refraction.

If they only 'appear' to shimmer, what are they really doing?  I don't see anything but statements here with no references or explanations for these claims.

What experiments did you perform to determine that refraction does not cause shimmering?  Or can you reference someone else's to back up your claim?

Just thinking logically, differences in air temperature and pressure cause light to refract, so it seems quite logical that looking at a point light through turbulent atmosphere will make it shimmer and flicker. What else would you expect when you change densities randomly between you and the light source? Who WOULDN'T it shimmer?
I wrote," Lights appear to shimmer due to refraction." I have no clue why you would ask for an experiment I performed to determine refraction does not cause shimmering.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1236
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #56 on: February 09, 2021, 05:16:59 PM »
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.
I am aware that lights appear to be shimmer due to refraction, but the light is at its point of origin. Shimmer is NOT refraction.

If they only 'appear' to shimmer, what are they really doing?  I don't see anything but statements here with no references or explanations for these claims.

What experiments did you perform to determine that refraction does not cause shimmering?  Or can you reference someone else's to back up your claim?

Just thinking logically, differences in air temperature and pressure cause light to refract, so it seems quite logical that looking at a point light through turbulent atmosphere will make it shimmer and flicker. What else would you expect when you change densities randomly between you and the light source? Who WOULDN'T it shimmer?
I wrote," Lights appear to shimmer due to refraction." I have no clue why you would ask for an experiment I performed to determine refraction does not cause shimmering.

You wrote "Shimmer is NOT refraction" and then "Lights appear to shimmer due to refraction" which is rather confusing.  What exactly are you trying to say here?

Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #57 on: February 16, 2021, 02:42:12 PM »
Waves and swells can certainly block the view of of the city skyline and more often than not, do exactly that.
Depends on your viewer height, and the height of the waves. If you are looking from the same height as the tallest wave then only the height of the wave will be blocked:



If your eye is higher than the waves then you're looking over them and less than the wave height will be blocked.



Only if your eye height is lower than the wave height can the wave or swell block more than its own height.
under

(this is all assuming a flat earth of course)

According to this:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/weather/ct-wea-0817-asktom-20140817-column.html#:~:text=At%20any%20given%20wind%20speed,(2%20to%204%20feet).

Quote
Even in "favorable" weather conditions, waves on Lake Michigan can build to surprisingly great heights. Waves grow as the momentum of moving air is transferred to the water surface, and this process occurs much more effectively when air temperatures are low relative to the water temperature. At any given wind speed, cold air over warm water (the usual winter situation) builds larger waves than warm air over cold water (the summer situation). Therefore, on average, waves during the winter, typically 4 to 8 feet in height, are higher than summer waves (2 to 4 feet). The strongest winter storms can, on rare occasions, generate waves 20 to 22 feet in height on Lake Michigan.

So in winter with the 4-8ft waves then if you're standing right on the shore then it's possible that taller waves could block the view.
In a storm they definitely could. In the summer, not so much unless you're lying on your belly next to the water.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 680
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #58 on: February 16, 2021, 03:29:01 PM »
Waves and swells can certainly block the view of of the city skyline and more often than not, do exactly that.
Depends on your viewer height, and the height of the waves. If you are looking from the same height as the tallest wave then only the height of the wave will be blocked:



If your eye is higher than the waves then you're looking over them and less than the wave height will be blocked.



Only if your eye height is lower than the wave height can the wave or swell block more than its own height.
under

(this is all assuming a flat earth of course)

According to this:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/weather/ct-wea-0817-asktom-20140817-column.html#:~:text=At%20any%20given%20wind%20speed,(2%20to%204%20feet).

Quote
Even in "favorable" weather conditions, waves on Lake Michigan can build to surprisingly great heights. Waves grow as the momentum of moving air is transferred to the water surface, and this process occurs much more effectively when air temperatures are low relative to the water temperature. At any given wind speed, cold air over warm water (the usual winter situation) builds larger waves than warm air over cold water (the summer situation). Therefore, on average, waves during the winter, typically 4 to 8 feet in height, are higher than summer waves (2 to 4 feet). The strongest winter storms can, on rare occasions, generate waves 20 to 22 feet in height on Lake Michigan.

So in winter with the 4-8ft waves then if you're standing right on the shore then it's possible that taller waves could block the view.
In a storm they definitely could. In the summer, not so much unless you're lying on your belly next to the water.

A nice demonstration of the situation for sure.

I would just add though that in the situations where the wave  height is greater than the observer height, standing at the normal water's edge would cost you your life :). Cant stand in the swash zone without getting dragged out into the lake by the back-currents (damn those steongly oscillatory flows in the littoral zone!) An observer looking across the lake during storms would need to stand back, and even on the most low relief beach zones, standing back means gaining appreciable observer height as you climb up former beach ridges and semi-active dunes. This is amplified along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan which has numerous active done fields along beach zones, and high, actively eroding bluffs in many other areas.

Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #59 on: February 16, 2021, 04:31:26 PM »
Make sure when you quote wave heights of 4-8 feet that the height is correctly quoted - does that height measure from water level to wave crest or is it from trough to crest? The second case means the wave height is half that of the first case. AATW’s diagrams don’t illustrate wave behaviour correctly, the troughs don’t all follow the same depth of water unless a shorebreak is being illustrated and the observer is in danger of being swept away.
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.