What would change your mind?

Your word salad makes no sense.  I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.

Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball?  Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.

I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.

Well that's the problem. I've read it through carefully and I don't see anything convincing at all. You claim for example, if I stood on a ball, I wouldn't ever see an edge. Completely disagree. If I don't see an edge, what do I see instead?

What you would see instead would be the sky, if you were living on top of a globe. No horizon would be possible.
You claim you would see an edge because you see your horizon and it goes with your belief that you are actually standing on a globe, so naturally you're going to massively reject anything else.
What you'd be better doing is putting your own mind to work and having a real serious think about it, without any sidetracking peer pressure involved.

If I hold a ball up in front of me, I see a circular edge, it doesn't matter how large or small the ball is or how close or how far away it is either, so what's the magic size or distance where the edge just somehow disappears?

You  must have read up on this topic and seen my many many posts. You will surely understand that I'm talking about being on a ball, not looking at a ball that you are not standing on.

As we move away from the Earth surface (in other words increase our altitude) so the amount of surface we see increases.  Eventually the horizon starts to appear curved in all directions and that is the first point when we say we can see the true edge of the sphere that is Earth.

The higher you go on your ball and looking out horizontally level, you see sky, no different than you standing on that ball.
You will never see any edge because your ball is always running downwards from your level view. The curve simply gets farther and farther away.You can not, ever see an edge to a bally you are part of.
Of course you can see a curved line of a ball against background if you had one on a table or a floor away from you....but that's not what we are dealing with on this Earth, physically.

So go on then.. I challenge you. If you can convince me that it really is nonsense to think the Earth is a sphere then I will bow to your better knowledge.  But I doubt very much you will.  And don't go on about going out and finding out for myself etc etc... you tell me why you think I (and presumably everyone else) should start thinking the Earth is flat.

After all this is what this discussion is all about isn't it.  Providing evidence that will change our minds.

I've given you some easy one's. If you decide it's hogwash then feel free to do so. I have no wish to change your mind.That wish has to be yours.

You make for a fascinating psychology study, Septic! You come up with a convenient reason for everything, don't you, which falls quickly apart when applying the smallest degree of logic.

I seriously don't see anything falling apart. I do see people trying to tell me it is without knowing why.
 

It's really amazing how your "atmospheric stack" puts paid to a person on the east coast of Australia not being able see Los Angeles, if using a powerful enough telescope. Yet, anyone can see the sun or stars crystal clear as they peak over the horizon - through the same "atmospheric stack." 

You're looking at eye level, horizontally through the part of the stack your eyes are focused through.You have dense atmosphere that kills off light to the underside of your eye lens, due to the upper reflected light hitting your upper part of your lens, meaning you see what can be seen in that upper part as light against the lower part of fading light, creating your horizon line or anything in that upper light, which could be a building, depending on distance.

As for the so called stars. They're points of reflected light.You're bound to see them because not only does your upper lens catch that reflected light(s),you are also looking off level ,meaning you start to see through a less densely packed atmospheric stacking system that lessens in amount as your angled elevation increases in view.

When you say the earth is flat but the sky is curved / concave  what do you mean? Is it curved or is it concave?

Let's go with concavely curved if you're having issues with it.

If concave, you've lost me. You do realise the sea is level on a curved surface being the earth, thanks to Earth's gravity?

Yep, sea level is possible because the water sits inside a sort of concave/curved Earth scoop out where it fills a lot of it and is held.

This would never happen if that water was sitting on a convex curve. Your logic should absolutely tell you this but you decide to go with gravity somehow pulling it level. It makes no sense....at all.
If gravity was supposedly pulling it all level all the way around your supposed global Earth, then it stands to reason your global Earth would cease to be, global.It would be flattened out.

Senseless in the extreme.

Reading your posts is like reading comic book physics from the 1890's, where the writer makes it up as he goes along.

I think that applies to the so called mainstream pseudo-science books that are placed on the fact shelf instead of the fiction.
I do understand your thought process about me, though. I'm the same with the global nonsense, reading like fictional story books and comic like descriptions.

I'll tell ya what though. Post up your photos of you standing on the edge of the Earth, looking over the side.

What side? There is no side.

Flat Earthers are good at making comments like 'global nonsense' or as Wise would say 'angry globalists' but they have yet to provide one grain of verifiable evidence that a flat Earth exists anywhere other than in their minds.

Sure you can think what you like but all the evidence up to now tells me that we live on a sphere.  We all see the same evidence of course so it all comes down to how we interpret that evidence. Show ten different people the same painting and ask them independently and anonymously what they see and you will get ten different answers.

It's all about opinions.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 04:16:08 AM

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.

It was already explained to you before.
Unless you have significant distortion, straight lines remain straight.

As you continually appeal to convergence, that is showing the point of convergence.
The point where parallel appear to meet.
The only reason to not pay attention to them is if you wish to claim they aren't level, and instead they all point up.

But to any honest, rational individual, these lines are almost certainly level, and thus point to the convergence point, aka eye-level.
So this picture, just like the ones provided earlier by me, show that the horizon is not at eye level.

Meanwhile, the centre of the lens could point in any direction.

The centre of any lens points in the direction it is focused on...pinpoint.
It is the convergence of the entirety of that lens to the focal point (centre)
It's the very reason you hit a vanishing point of anything you see in the distance where the lions share of light reaches to that point from all angles of the entire lens.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 04:16:08 AM

So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?

I wouldn't put it like that.
I would say from the horizon, Earth curves downwards 603 ft (equivalent to 30 miles), thus obscuring 603 ft of the tower.
There is no magical raising of it before him.

If the buildings are supposedly 603 feet below the supposed curved horizon then the person on the other side has to be 603 feet below the other side of that horizon if looked at from the foundation of the buildings on the other side.
It makes no sense.
Not to mention the curve downwards to that 603 fee would see those buildings lean back......and a massive key to this would be the person would equally be leaning back down that convex curve, meaning his scope would be looking into the sky....off level.

Of course, none of this is seen because we do not live on a global Earth.

And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:

Ah, this I like! Concrete evidence. Yet, I dread, dismissed as fake as photographic evidence only works in favour of FE. (Like, no stars visible from the Moon and such.)

And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.

Again, that means it is invisible.
Do you understand the insanity of that?
You are claiming that a RE would mean Earth is invisible.

And there should be no difference between standing on it or standing away from it, meaning you are effectively claiming all balls are visible.
The fact that they aren't shows you are wrong.

If you want to claim it is different you need to explain why. Just what magically causes a RE to be invisible but not balls?

Or again, ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU KEEP AVOIDING!
How about this, I'll just focus on this question and keep bringing it up until you either answer or admit your strawman in no way represents the RE?

You have a ball. This ball has a radius of r. You are a distance of h away from the surface (if you would prefer you can use a distance of d to the centre, I don't really care).
Consider a full 360 degree FOV. This FOV includes looking directly towards the centre of the ball, looking directly away from the ball, and at right angles to this line and all the angles between, but for simplicity is kept to 2D. And the reference 0 degrees will be looking directly towards the ball.
What portion (angle) of this FOV does this ball take up?
What is the angular size of this ball?
What angle is the edge of this ball located at?

Can you just answer it? Or do you know that doing so will destroy your argument?

What makes no sense is for this to happen on a FE.
For a FE, you would have the base of the tower at the water level, not 603 ft below it.
If there was some magic preventing you seeing it, you would have a region of darkness.
It would be like this:

Again, the fact that we observe the night sky with large regions of darkness shows that your eyes shouldn't just magically glue the 2 regions together and remove the dark portion.

It doesn't need to magically glue both regions together. I explained your eye lens and this is the key.
Your eye loses light reflection to it depending on the light source managing to get back to it.
Your centre of your lens is your pin point for light reaching above and below as well as left to right.
It now comes down to what light can reflect and off of what. The denser matter...water, for instance against less dense matter of atmosphere will change the reflective properties back to your eye lens....hence why you do not see whole objects in that distance because reflection gains from ground up and diminishes from sky down due to change in atmospheric stack.

So nice and simple question 1, which can be expressed in a few different, but basically equivalent ways:
You have a ball. This ball has a radius of r. You are a distance of h away from the surface (if you would prefer you can use a distance of d to the centre, I don't really care).
Consider a full 360 degree FOV. This FOV includes looking directly towards the centre of the ball, looking directly away from the ball, and at right angles to this line and all the angles between, but for simplicity is kept to 2D. And the reference 0 degrees will be looking directly towards the ball.
What portion portion (angle) of this FOV does this ball take up?
What is the angular size of this ball?
What angle is the edge of this ball located at.

Deal with what we are dealing with, which is your global Earth sphere.
It's pointless using a ball that you just sit back and look at in the distance.

Deal with what I mentioned.
On your globe, looking horizontally level all around your vantage point.
You have to accept that it curves downwards from your level view......always, at every point in your 360 degree turn and focus.

Of course, none of this is seen because we do not live on a global Earth.

Again this is just your opinion.  And currently there is very little evidence to back up your claim.  Once again, how are equatorial mounts supposed to work in the southern hemisphere if the Earth is (as you continue to insist) flat?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 04:16:08 AM

If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?

Nope again. You don't seem to understand a simple concept like your field of view. Two factors are involved in obscuring your FOV, dip (aka drop) and bulge.

You should be aware enough to understand that, if you were living on a globe like you think then that globe would always curve downwards from your vision.
You would never ever be looking up a bulge.
You have a massive problem. And that diagram is complete and utter nonsense.
Your eye level is right. The rest is your reasoning that you have to dip your eyes. You would have to look down from level and you think that would create your horizon when it would create a ground view....nothing else.
As for the bulge...it's the same thing as your pretentious horizon. You would be looking at the ground,not a bulge.

And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:

Put the camera on the first image........the ball and get back to me.
I don't know how many times I need to tell you that your view of Earth with you on it looking horizontally level.

The second diagram I have zero clue what that is or what it's supposed to represent. Maybe you can explain it.

It's not only simple sunsets, sunrises, and curvature of the sea, Septic has to ignore in his belief. He also has to ignore sea currents, the proven shape of Antarctica, the proven shape of each country and each sea and ocean, air currents, weather patterns, etc.

Where oh where is his photo of himself standing on the edge of the earth peering over the side? I'm not asking for much.

Reference this and it'll save you repeating yourself.

There is no edge, so I can't be looking over any edge of Earth.

Also, on flat snow globe earth, is the sun inside or outside the perspex dome?

In my Earth cell the lot is inside.
Anything we see, is inside.
That's my theory. It's well documented so look it all up if you want to. I won't be answering anything about it on this topic.

(Sorry for giving you such a hard time, Septic, I'm trying to flush Wise out of retirement)

You Are not giving me any hard time.

I'm still waiting for sceptic to explain to me how an equatorial mount could possibly work in the southern hemisphere.

There is no southern hemisphere.

The shape of the earth isn't a question of science first. It's a question of geography first. The science came second, and complemented what geographers had already confirmed.

This site will continue to have its flat earth threads ofcourse, but the best kept secret is it's the threads that have nothing to do with flat earth, that are the best threads.

Nothing stopping you from sticking to those best threads and leaving those you dislike or don;t suit your mindset.
I stay out of lots of topics.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 01:17:16 AM

And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.

Again, that means it is invisible.
Do you understand the insanity of that?
You are claiming that a RE would mean Earth is invisible.

Bingo....correct. It would not exist, just as I've been telling you.
The reason we have the horizon is because the Earth is not a globe or ball or whatever you want to make it.

Quote

Of course, none of this is seen because we do not live on a global Earth.

Again this is just your opinion.  And currently there is very little evidence to back up your claim.  Once again, how are equatorial mounts supposed to work in the southern hemisphere if the Earth is (as you continue to insist) flat?

What exactly is your equatorial mount supposed to be doing?

You don't know what an equatorial mount for a telescope does?  Obviously not because otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question. 

My question is more to do with how would you set one up (polar alignment) in the southern hemisphere.

You don't know what an equatorial mount for a telescope does?  Obviously not because otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question. 

My question is more to do with how would you set one up (polar alignment) in the southern hemisphere.

How about you explain to me what happens. If you can't do it then don't use this stuff to argue with with.

Happy to..

An equatorial mount is designed to allow tracking of the stars, Moon or Sun by using rotation in just one axis (RA).  As it rises, transits the meridian and then sets, a stars altitude and azimuth varies constantly due to the Earths rotation. 

That means if we use an ordinary alt-az mount which (such as a standard photographic tripod) which is aligned with the observers horizon and zenith we will need to continually move the mount in two directions to keep a star centred in the telescope FOV.

However if we tilt the mount so it is aligned with the Earths polar axis instead then the telescope is now aligned with the stars direction of movement. This means the polar axis of the mount has to be aimed directly and exactly with the celestial pole. I use a special camera to to this (QHY PoleMaster) which allows polar alignment to an accuracy of 30" in just a few minutes. 

Now for the northern hemisphere that is easy because the star Polaris (currently) lies just 40' (2/3 of a degree) away from the NCP. According to flat Earthers the north pole lies directly in the middle of the flat Earth and the north celestial pole would therefore be directly overhead if you were standing at the north pole.  This is also true for RE as well.  Effectively then an equatorial mount becomes an alt-az mount if used at the north pole.

However lines (or rather circles) of latitude on a flat Earth would simply become wider and wider as you move away from the north pole until you eventually get to the Antarctica where the south pole lies.  According to FE models that I have seen thus far, Antarctica is the circumference of the flat Earth 'disc'. However on the RE the south pole lies at a point where all lines of longitude converge and which also corresponds to 90deg south.  In other words the south pole on RE is a point just like the north pole is.

Astronomers in the southern hemisphere see a point in the sky where all the stars appear to rotate (clockwise) around. So they aim their equatorial mounts at the SCP so it is also aligned with the Earths polar axis but pointing to the SCP rather than the NCP.  That way the telescope tracks the stars just as would in the northern hemisphere.

But if there is no single point on a flat Earth to represent the south pole then there cannot be a point in the sky which corresponds with the south celestial pole can there. If that were true then how would you know where to point your equatorial mount in the southern hemisphere so it can track the stars?

Yet equatorial mounts work perfectly fine in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

https://rogergroom.com/polar-alignment-information-southern-hemisphere/

If you can draw a similar diagram to the one shown in the above link that would work just as well for a flat Earth then you are better than me.

I have been using equatorial mounts of all shapes and sizes for over 30 years now so if there are any other questions you have about then ask away.

Quote from: JJA on September 19, 2020, 08:21:03 AM

Your word salad makes no sense.  I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.

Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball?  Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.

I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.

And I'm saying the lens of your eye has nothing to do with how perspective works.   And we are looking at a picture taken with a camera, what has your eyeball lens have to do with that and the lines drawn on it?

So you can see the edge of the basketball when standing away from it.

According to you, if you shrink down and stand on it you can't see the edge.

So tell me, what what point does the edge mysteriously disappear?

How close to the basketball do I need to get before it vanishes, turns invisible or whatever you think happens to it?

Put the camera on the first image........the ball and get back to me.

Hey, why don’t you take the picture, and explain it to us? You have camera on your phone, surely? Do a bit of work instead of shouting nonsense with nothing to back it up.

Well, if nothing else, Septic, you're a true gentleman. You've politely answered everybody's posts, even the super angry ones. Your pseudo optometrist mind has been working overtime.

I know you don't want to talk about the dome in this thread, and insist there is no edge, but a lot of these posts deal with the horizon.

So, be a good chappie and please explain what you call the line in your earth cell, where the sky physically meets the ground? I say sky, but you say dome, right? If you were to stand on that line, wouldn't your head be butted up against this dome? Or are you an infinite flat earther? Flat earth incorporates such a myriad of deviations on the theme!

Good to hear I haven't been giving you a hard time.  This topic has entered my mindset so, I'll stick with it for a few days, if you dont mind?

You still haven't responded to the fact all continent and island shapes and sea and ocean shapes, have been accurately mapped and found to form a sphere like a giant 3d puzzle when put together.

You still haven't responded to the fact all continent and island shapes and sea and ocean shapes, have been accurately mapped and found to form a sphere like a giant 3d puzzle when put together.

He still hasn't explained how equatorial mounts can work in the southern hemisphere either.  Having been asked to explain how they work I have done so in detail but without a south celestial pole according to FE models, I can't see how they would work south of the equator.  At least not without some serious bending of light etc which would put any Olympic standard contortionist to shame.

So, be a good chappie and please explain what you call the line in your earth cell, where the sky physically meets the ground? I say sky, but you say dome, right? If you were to stand on that line, wouldn't your head be butted up against this dome?

Please tell me that modern flat Earthers don't still believe that!

Quote from: Stash on September 19, 2020, 03:23:44 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 04:16:08 AM

If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?

Nope again. You don't seem to understand a simple concept like your field of view. Two factors are involved in obscuring your FOV, dip (aka drop) and bulge.

You should be aware enough to understand that, if you were living on a globe like you think then that globe would always curve downwards from your vision.
You would never ever be looking up a bulge.
You have a massive problem. And that diagram is complete and utter nonsense.
Your eye level is right. The rest is your reasoning that you have to dip your eyes. You would have to look down from level and you think that would create your horizon when it would create a ground view....nothing else.
As for the bulge...it's the same thing as your pretentious horizon. You would be looking at the ground,not a bulge.

Quote from: Stash

And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:

Put the camera on the first image........the ball and get back to me.
I don't know how many times I need to tell you that your view of Earth with you on it looking horizontally level.

The second diagram I have zero clue what that is or what it's supposed to represent. Maybe you can explain it.

Like I’ve stated before, you don’t seem to have knowledge of the conventional model of earth you so rail against. In the conventional model, Earth is huge:



Nor do you understand how a humans Field of View works on the enormity of Earth:



Considering how massive Earth is and our up-down, side-to-side, all around FOV, there is literally no rational reason why one would not see a horizon line on a globe Earth. None whatsoever.

And you never answered my question regarding your odd notion that somehow the hidden 600’ of the base of the CN tower from 39 miles away is because it’s too dark to see. What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?

Big numbers are the bane of FE. Ditto for distances. They just do not comprehend those.

Or indeed very small numbers.  Not sure why they have a problem as it they are all quite easy to manage once you get used to them. For instance if you take the Sun to Earth distance of 92,960,000 and being equal to 1 then using ratios we can reduce the distances of Mercury and Venus to 0.3 and 0.7 respectively and using this same scale the distance to Pluto becomes 40 in round figures.  What is so hard about that.

Then of course we have lightyears.  Now of course the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s and there are 31,536,000 second in a year so 1 lightyear is equal to 9,454,254,955,488,000 metres.  Lets call that 9.454 x 10^15 m which is a bit easier to manage.  The diameter of the Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 lots of that 9.454x10^15 metres so lets just use lightyears instead.  100,000 lightyears. 

I don't really think in terms of actual distance.  Just numbers.

Happy to..

An equatorial mount is designed to allow tracking of the stars, Moon or Sun by using rotation in just one axis (RA).  As it rises, transits the meridian and then sets, a stars altitude and azimuth varies constantly due to the Earths rotation. 

That means if we use an ordinary alt-az mount which (such as a standard photographic tripod) which is aligned with the observers horizon and zenith we will need to continually move the mount in two directions to keep a star centred in the telescope FOV.

However if we tilt the mount so it is aligned with the Earths polar axis instead then the telescope is now aligned with the stars direction of movement. This means the polar axis of the mount has to be aimed directly and exactly with the celestial pole. I use a special camera to to this (QHY PoleMaster) which allows polar alignment to an accuracy of 30" in just a few minutes. 

Now for the northern hemisphere that is easy because the star Polaris (currently) lies just 40' (2/3 of a degree) away from the NCP. According to flat Earthers the north pole lies directly in the middle of the flat Earth and the north celestial pole would therefore be directly overhead if you were standing at the north pole.  This is also true for RE as well.  Effectively then an equatorial mount becomes an alt-az mount if used at the north pole.

However lines (or rather circles) of latitude on a flat Earth would simply become wider and wider as you move away from the north pole until you eventually get to the Antarctica where the south pole lies.  According to FE models that I have seen thus far, Antarctica is the circumference of the flat Earth 'disc'. However on the RE the south pole lies at a point where all lines of longitude converge and which also corresponds to 90deg south.  In other words the south pole on RE is a point just like the north pole is.

Astronomers in the southern hemisphere see a point in the sky where all the stars appear to rotate (clockwise) around. So they aim their equatorial mounts at the SCP so it is also aligned with the Earths polar axis but pointing to the SCP rather than the NCP.  That way the telescope tracks the stars just as would in the northern hemisphere.

But if there is no single point on a flat Earth to represent the south pole then there cannot be a point in the sky which corresponds with the south celestial pole can there. If that were true then how would you know where to point your equatorial mount in the southern hemisphere so it can track the stars?

Yet equatorial mounts work perfectly fine in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

https://rogergroom.com/polar-alignment-information-southern-hemisphere/

If you can draw a similar diagram to the one shown in the above link that would work just as well for a flat Earth then you are better than me.

I have been using equatorial mounts of all shapes and sizes for over 30 years now so if there are any other questions you have about then ask away.

So, basically you observe lights in the sky and track them and you believe this is on a globe and not tracking moving lights over and around a concave dome?

It proves nothing from either side, to be fair.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 01:17:16 AM

Quote from: JJA on September 19, 2020, 08:21:03 AM

Your word salad makes no sense.  I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.

Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball?  Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.

I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.

And I'm saying the lens of your eye has nothing to do with how perspective works.   And we are looking at a picture taken with a camera, what has your eyeball lens have to do with that and the lines drawn on it?

Draw a cross hair on an replica eye lens and you will see you have a convex cross hair and your focal point is the dead centre of that lens.
If you were behind that, it would be your level focal point.
If you placed a cross hair over the opposite end of your kitchen roll holder and looked through the other end, with that roll being on a level set up, looking out to sea. You will see your horizon.
If you saw just sky, you would have a great argument for your globe.
But you don't see that.

So you can see the edge of the basketball when standing away from it.

When you argue Earth being a basketball and I see that basket ball and edges, I'll change my stance.
Do we see this?

According to you, if you shrink down and stand on it you can't see the edge.

We are shrunk down and we are a dot against Earth and we do not see any edge.
What we do see is our own horizon line of conflicting light reflection back to our eyes.

So tell me, what what point does the edge mysteriously disappear?

There is never any edge if you live on a globe. All your level sight would  see, would be sky.
This does not happen.

How close to the basketball do I need to get before it vanishes, turns invisible or whatever you think happens to it?

Try it and see. Considering we are not talking about the convex edge of a small basket ball.