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!
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!