Why don't you: A) Go try to see them, B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas
Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.
How about you show us your work first before anyone goes through the trouble.
How exactly have you determined the angular resolution of an 'eye or a telescope' is insufficient to resolve the Himalayas at a distance?
Lets keep it simple, how far away will the Himalayas become invisible to the human eye? Please show your math.
I guess you aren't willing to show your work as to why you think you somehow can't see the Himalayas due to angular distance.
I actually made no claim. I asked him to demonstrate why I should could consider his claim. I'm sorry this distinction taxed you.
Lets clear this up right now since you're playing games. Simple question.
Do you think people see the Himalayas vanish from sight due to their angular distance becoming too small for the human eye to see?
Yes, no, or you don't know.
Ok, I'll bite for your B challenge and do your work for you.
Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 radians, which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance. (Source)
The Himalayas are 8,800 meters high.
Using basic geometry we can determine that with a 0.0003 radian resolution, an object 8,800 meters high will vanish at 58,666,666 meters away. (36,000 miles)
You asked to show the math, here it is: 8,800 / sin(0.0003/2) = 58,666,666
That destroys your 'angular resolution' argument, which you would have known yourself if you had done the math as you asked.
Might want to check that...
Even just using your source's truism that requires a .3 m minimum size at 1 km, you can do easy math to show 50,000 km requires an object larger than 15km in size...
Spot your problem yet?
It would have been nice if you actually showed your math, but yes I do see my problem! My answer is twice what it should be, which when corrected still shows the Himalayas to be far larger than needed to see from anywhere on the Earth, so it doesn't change my argument one bit.
(8,800/2) / sin(0.0003/2) = 29,333,333 meters = 18,000 miles.
So we should be able to see the Himalayas from 18 thousand miles away. More than enough to show that angular resolution can't be the cause.
Lets look at this another way so we can avoid using sources which you seem to distrust. What would the resolution of the human eye be if an object 8,800 meters high were to become invisible at say 200,000 meters due to angular resolution?
atan(8800/2/200000)*2 = 2.5 degrees. So the human eye would have to have a resolution equal to or lower than that to not see a mountain at 200km.
So how large of an object could you see at 10 meters if your eyes angular resolution was limited to only 2.5 degrees?
10*tan(2.5/2)*2 = 0.44 meters, or 44 centimeters.
I'm pretty sure I can see a 44 centimeter object 10 meters away.
No matter how you do the math, there is no way that an eight thousand meter tall mountain is going to get too tiny for our eyes to resolve at the distance where it vanishes from sight. It's not even close.
Angular resolution limits are not why objects vanish over the horizon and is not too difficult to disprove.