5 foot object doesnt disappear at 300 feet

It does at 3 miles

Now you're catching on

It would vanish to the naked eye

At 300 feet the bottom few inches prolly start disappearing

Without a telescope

5 feet isn't too big

I would imagine it'd be hard to see from that far away

The bottom starts disappearing, sure. But that's assuming you can see it without using a telescope

Thats what we are talking about just human vision limits

Ok hun

The angle of light going into the retina

In the back of the eye

Yep

K

Would you care to explain how the sail of a sailboat does not become unresolvable gradually when aided by a telescope then

It does

Or maybe why it doesn't appear to sink when viewed by the naked eye

It does

It doesn't

Sure it does

It becomes unresolved to the naked eye before it becomes unresolved with a telescope

It appears to sink and even starts blending with the sky

Telescope brings it back into view

If your theory was correct you would be able to see it vanish behind the horizon once with the naked eye then again while using a telescope

You do

You don't

Go watch a boat then use binoculars

I will

Ok

Let me know what you get

But if I don't see it sink twice you're gonna have to explain that to me

Ok

Nite

Nite

@UltimateLifeformGappy ^^^^

Looks like it was 17000 feet not 299 feet

Okay so three things:
1. That's not a right triangle, it's isosceles. The formula depends on it being a right triangle. With an isosceles triangle the sides could be literally any length. That's why you're getting the exact same distance you put in.
2. You're using a different input. The height and angle are still the same, but you're using 17,188 feet instead of the agreed upon 15,840 feet.
3. My math with the 300 ft only used the height of the observer and the angle of 0.02 to find the distance at which the angle would be 0.02. It didn't use the three mile distance at all.