The Earth that you believe in will always curve downwards and away from your vision.
No, it wont.
For example, if you look down, you can clearly see it.
If you look down, of course you can see it.
And that is one of the key points.
You look down YOU SEE GROUND/SEA.
You look up, you see sky.
So what visually separates them other than the horizon?
Stop appealing to your stupid 0 degree level sight which no one has.
Instead just address the simple fact that the RE SHOULD have a horizon.
Either explain why it shouldn't, or admit it has one.
What you're missing is the major key and that major key is a standing start of a level outlook, not a raised vision into the sky with a stop off line.
No, what you are missing is the fact that the RE SHOULD have a horizon, a fact you are yet to refute or challenge in any meaningful way, which instead you need to continually appeal to a magical level sight with no FOV.
Remember, you are not merely claiming that the horizon should not be visible in such a hypothetical and physically impossible FOV. Instead you are claiming the RE should not have a horizon AT ALL!
That means you cannot appeal to a level sight.
Now again, ANSWER THE QUESTION! It is an extremely simple question you continually refuse to answer because you know you have no answer.
Why shouldn't the RE have a horizon?
What visually separates the ground/sea from the sky?
No, that's not right. I give out plenty
It is right. You not liking that wont change that.
You give out nothing of value, dismissing evidence provided as a con-job, with no justification at all, completely ignoring logical arguments that show you are wrong, and continually refusing to answer questions and instead pretending to by answering different questions.
The example above is just yet another example of this behaviour of yours.
You cannot justify your lie that the RE shouldn't have a horizon, so instead of attempting to answer the extremely simple question, you instead deal with a completely different question.
None of you can put anything forward from your own minds.
We have put forward plenty, but as you have no rational objection, you need to find some excuse to dismiss it.
There's no religion but my devotion is in getting the truth or at least ensuring people can think for themselves and go looking for it. Because one thing's for sure. The oblate spheroid spinning in a vacuum around a big fiery ball of fire is sickeningly yet bemusingly nonsensical.
Hilarious.
You literally just described your religious belief that leads you to simply disregard all of science.
It's not religion. It's called logical sense.
No, it is called a complete absence of logical sense and reasoning.
You yet again religiously assert that the RE model is nonsense, while being completely incapable of showing a single fault with it.
And likewise being incapable of defending your lies about it.
It makes no sense because evidence.....real evidence shows it to be nonsense, not just the thought process of the nonsense of it.
Something not being supported by or it being contradicted by evidence does not mean it makes no sense, it just means it is incorrect.
But what evidence would that be?
Do you mean the plentiful evidence showing the horizon below eye level, exactly as expected for a RE, and not what is expected for a FE?
Or do you mean the evidence of water obscuring the view to the base of a distant object, even though both the object and observer are above water level, clearly demonstrating the water is curved?
Or do you mean your pathetic experiments in a sink where your observations match those expected for a RE?
The reason why you people stay must be en masse ego boosting
That would be the reason you stay, and the reason you avoid anything which shows you are wrong, unless you can find some way to twist it to get out of it.
We stay because we care about the truth.
This would include seeing an argument which actually stands, which shows the RE model is wrong, and thus accepting the RE model is wrong, as well as explaining why arguments put forward are incorrect, and the latter includes arguments from both the RE side and the FE side.