How is a measurement tool used if not by looking at it? They are made to be read by the human eye. They don't work by themselves, they were not created by magic or AI, or maybe you think they are?
The horizon is a word that denotes where the the land meets the sky from our perspective, by sight. It is a natural boundary between 2 distinct media that can be seen with the eye. Sometimes it's hazy to see but we understand it to be there all the same. Think of it as similar to the separation between land and water you see in nature - the shore line, but also what you can't see: river, lake and sea beds are where the water stops and land begins. Or even with liquid in a container, the meniscus. Molecular boundaries.
The illusory part that is probably confusing you (unless your just being willfully ignorant) is that these boundaries are not a consistent shape, they move and change, with the horizon since the surface is irregular and can change over time, and the sky or atmosphere (or water, liquids in general) is malleable and transparent, for example. Water and gas and earth are different forms of matter, different molecule structures, though there are mixes like water vapor. They have different properties and behaviors. We give names to the "lines" where they meet in nature that we see most regularly: the horizon, the shoreline, the coastline etc. That is what these words, like horizon, denote: not an illusion. It's not a mystery or a lie. You've simply misunderstood what it means.
If your next reply requires more explanations of fairly basic, observable facts like this you're not getting it unless you start paying me for my time.
How is a measurement tool used if not by looking at it?
You are being willfully obtuse. Obviously the measurement tool does not look, it measures. Looking and measuring are different, and sight is not required to measure or live. You seem to be getting bogged down in minutia to “defend your point”, but it is only muddling the conversation. You can “win the point” if you must, but you are losing the thread of the conversation in the process.
The horizon is a word that denotes where the the land meets the sky from our perspective
Yes, where it appears to meet from our perspective. It is an optical illusion chiefly caused by the angular resolution limits of our eyes.
lake and sea beds are where the water stops and land begins
That is a physical location, the horizon is not. It’s apparent distance changes with weather conditions, and no matter how much you want to reach it, it always recedes from you - exactly like a rainbow, and for extremely similar reasons.
the horizon, the shoreline, the coastline
🎶One of these things is not like the other ones, one of these things does not belong🎶 :)
That is what these words, like horizon, denote: not an illusion. It's not a mystery or a lie.
I agree, it is simply an mistake/error that we were taught. The horizon is not a physical location, it is an optical illusion. You cannot infer the shape of the world from an optical illusion. “Flat earthers” erroneously point to a flat horizon as proof the world is flat. Globe earth believers erroneously think that the horizon curves and proves a spherical earth. They are mirrors of the same fundamental mistake.
You've simply misunderstood what it means.
You don’t have to agree with me, but you could understand me if you wish to. The misunderstanding is what we were both taught about the physical reality of the horizon being the “edge of the world”. It isn’t; it’s just the edge of our vision.
If your next reply requires more explanations
None of my replies have really required any explanations from you. You will never understand my perspective by explaining yours, and it is crazy to think that is the way it ought to work. As i said, if you want to understand my perspective, my reasoning, and my evidence - you should try asking questions!
I was never taught the horizon is a single location. If someone taught you that they didn't understand it. It is a word that denotes an optical observation of where the farthest land you can see "ends" (on the vertical axis) and atmosphere/sky begins. Not an illusion. It changes as you move towards or away from it. You can't go to the horizon, because by definition it is the furthest point of land away from you that you can see. You can go to something you see on the horizon, but when you get there it's no longer on the horizon.
Also the stuff about it being a molecular boundary line in my last comment is perfectly true despite your nonsense.
I'm not trying to understand your perspective. I don't care about it. it's circuitous meaningless waffle.
I was never taught the horizon is a single location.
Of course you were, and you believe it too. Standing in one place, that we agree exists, is fixed, and can be reached - say the shoreline, you were taught and believe that the horizon is the physical edge of the world and is a fixed distance from the observer (even if, as you admit, the optical perception of that fixed physical horizon varies due to weather factors).
I’m not trying to attribute a view to you that you don’t have, so if you don’t agree with the above (the standard taught view) - please explain why/how your view differs!
Not an illusion
Right, we are taught that but it is incorrect. It is a causal result of the way our eyes work and the intrinsic attenuation of light. The sky doesn’t really collide into the ground/surface into a compressed line at roughly eye level in the far distance, it merely appears that way to us. It is not the “edge of our world” as we are taught, but merely the edge of our vision.
Also the stuff about it being a molecular boundary line in my last comment is perfectly true
We know that the air and the surface of the world touch - it is hardly a profound or relevant insight regardless of nomenclature used. The horizon that we see (an optical illusion) is not the name for the location where that happens, because it happens everywhere there is surface.
I'm not trying to understand your perspective. I don't care about it
In fairness, you were very straightforward about that. You are admittedly close minded and pigheaded on the subject. Your candor and self awareness is appreciated.
As i said before, i answered your question because i found it was earnest and therefore warranted an earnest response even though you had already declared you were going to ignore any such answer.
it's circuitous meaningless waffle.
Your mistaken presumption of my perspective is, no doubt. But in order to know my actual perspective, and be capable of making an informed judgement on it, would require you to learn about it first. You aren’t a psychic, and it is extremely foolish to assume you are! When you don’t know something (or misinterpret/misunderstand something that is said), asking questions is a good first step!
How is a measurement tool used if not by looking at it? They are made to be read by the human eye. They don't work by themselves, they were not created by magic or AI, or maybe you think they are?
The horizon is a word that denotes where the the land meets the sky from our perspective, by sight. It is a natural boundary between 2 distinct media that can be seen with the eye. Sometimes it's hazy to see but we understand it to be there all the same. Think of it as similar to the separation between land and water you see in nature - the shore line, but also what you can't see: river, lake and sea beds are where the water stops and land begins. Or even with liquid in a container, the meniscus. Molecular boundaries.
The illusory part that is probably confusing you (unless your just being willfully ignorant) is that these boundaries are not a consistent shape, they move and change, with the horizon since the surface is irregular and can change over time, and the sky or atmosphere (or water, liquids in general) is malleable and transparent, for example. Water and gas and earth are different forms of matter, different molecule structures, though there are mixes like water vapor. They have different properties and behaviors. We give names to the "lines" where they meet in nature that we see most regularly: the horizon, the shoreline, the coastline etc. That is what these words, like horizon, denote: not an illusion. It's not a mystery or a lie. You've simply misunderstood what it means.
If your next reply requires more explanations of fairly basic, observable facts like this you're not getting it unless you start paying me for my time.
You are being willfully obtuse. Obviously the measurement tool does not look, it measures. Looking and measuring are different, and sight is not required to measure or live. You seem to be getting bogged down in minutia to “defend your point”, but it is only muddling the conversation. You can “win the point” if you must, but you are losing the thread of the conversation in the process.
Yes, where it appears to meet from our perspective. It is an optical illusion chiefly caused by the angular resolution limits of our eyes.
That is a physical location, the horizon is not. It’s apparent distance changes with weather conditions, and no matter how much you want to reach it, it always recedes from you - exactly like a rainbow, and for extremely similar reasons.
🎶One of these things is not like the other ones, one of these things does not belong🎶 :)
I agree, it is simply an mistake/error that we were taught. The horizon is not a physical location, it is an optical illusion. You cannot infer the shape of the world from an optical illusion. “Flat earthers” erroneously point to a flat horizon as proof the world is flat. Globe earth believers erroneously think that the horizon curves and proves a spherical earth. They are mirrors of the same fundamental mistake.
You don’t have to agree with me, but you could understand me if you wish to. The misunderstanding is what we were both taught about the physical reality of the horizon being the “edge of the world”. It isn’t; it’s just the edge of our vision.
None of my replies have really required any explanations from you. You will never understand my perspective by explaining yours, and it is crazy to think that is the way it ought to work. As i said, if you want to understand my perspective, my reasoning, and my evidence - you should try asking questions!
I was never taught the horizon is a single location. If someone taught you that they didn't understand it. It is a word that denotes an optical observation of where the farthest land you can see "ends" (on the vertical axis) and atmosphere/sky begins. Not an illusion. It changes as you move towards or away from it. You can't go to the horizon, because by definition it is the furthest point of land away from you that you can see. You can go to something you see on the horizon, but when you get there it's no longer on the horizon.
Also the stuff about it being a molecular boundary line in my last comment is perfectly true despite your nonsense.
I'm not trying to understand your perspective. I don't care about it. it's circuitous meaningless waffle.
Of course you were, and you believe it too. Standing in one place, that we agree exists, is fixed, and can be reached - say the shoreline, you were taught and believe that the horizon is the physical edge of the world and is a fixed distance from the observer (even if, as you admit, the optical perception of that fixed physical horizon varies due to weather factors).
I’m not trying to attribute a view to you that you don’t have, so if you don’t agree with the above (the standard taught view) - please explain why/how your view differs!
Right, we are taught that but it is incorrect. It is a causal result of the way our eyes work and the intrinsic attenuation of light. The sky doesn’t really collide into the ground/surface into a compressed line at roughly eye level in the far distance, it merely appears that way to us. It is not the “edge of our world” as we are taught, but merely the edge of our vision.
We know that the air and the surface of the world touch - it is hardly a profound or relevant insight regardless of nomenclature used. The horizon that we see (an optical illusion) is not the name for the location where that happens, because it happens everywhere there is surface.
In fairness, you were very straightforward about that. You are admittedly close minded and pigheaded on the subject. Your candor and self awareness is appreciated.
As i said before, i answered your question because i found it was earnest and therefore warranted an earnest response even though you had already declared you were going to ignore any such answer.
Your mistaken presumption of my perspective is, no doubt. But in order to know my actual perspective, and be capable of making an informed judgement on it, would require you to learn about it first. You aren’t a psychic, and it is extremely foolish to assume you are! When you don’t know something (or misinterpret/misunderstand something that is said), asking questions is a good first step!