It's not about anything rising to eye level. It is eye level at all times. This is what I'm trying to explain.
It's all about convergence with your eye of the light received from floor to ceiling or water to sky.
Except as repeatedly shown IT ISN'T!
What is clearly observed is that the horizon is not the convergence point.
This is why I know those tests are garbage.
No, it is why we know your claims are garbage, because your claims contradict reality, including repeatable, easily observable observations.
That is far more of a rational basis than to just reject things which show you are wrong for the simple reason that they show your claims to be wrong.
That is what you are saying, you are literally these observations because they show your claim to be wrong. Not because of any rational objection to them, but just because they show you are wrong.
I will never accept anything you try to tell me about horizon, unless you actually tell me what I already know to be true.
You mean what you falsely believe is correct even though all the available evidence which can actually determine if it is correct or not clearly shows that it is wrong?
And this is another admission that you have no concern for reality and no interest in the truth and that you will simply reject anything that shows you are wrong.
Your horizon will always be on that line if it is not tampered with, because your eye simply ensures that convergence.
Stop just repeating the same lie.
The horizon is not the point of convergence.
And you still don't tell us how you magically level the tube with just the tube rather than anything else.
Again, why not use a simple water level.
That way the water levels itself and provides the cross hair and easily shows the horizon to be below eye level (like in those photos you dishonestly dismiss as cheating just because they show you are wrong).
Don't take my word for it...go and do it.
It is quite clear that no one here is intending to do that, as your word is clearly a lie.
Why should we take your word for it, when plenty of evidence has been provided which shows otherwise.
And again, I HAVE DONE IT! YOU ARE WRONG!
The horizon is not magically converged to eye level.
If you do not know the size and distance of something, you can make anything up to fit a criteria. You know this and this is what I'm talking about.
No it wasn't.
You were objecting to fitting the path of the planets onto an ellipse, as that is what the data shows.
Even if you do just want to do it from observations of the object from "one location", you still can't make anything fit.
Instead what you need is for the size of the object to magically change as well.
Otherwise, the observed angular diameter and location still doesn't allow you to magically fit it to any shape.
So if you would like another example, then instead of those 9 points, use the angle from the centre of those points to each point, and the object always being observed to be the same angular size. Then fit these observations to a triangular path.
Then you can explain how you manage to have a flat water level on your magical bowl Earth that actually matches the observed oceans rather than flooding some areas of land entirely and leaving regions of oceans completely dry.
Flat and level will not match the oceans because the oceans are never calm.
We aren't talking about that scale and you know it.
We are talking about this, your "bowl" model of Earth with "flat" water:
The large scale were you have regions of land completely submerged, while large regions of ocean are dry, without any water.
Again:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?
If you want one which is not based upon evidence at all and instead based upon cold hard math and logic, then deal with the existence and location of the horizon on a RE, including how it is basically at eye level when you are close to the surface.
You are yet to provide any rational objection to the following line of logical reasoning that shows beyond any sane doubt that YOU ARE WRONG!
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Yet rather than admit you are wrong, you just completely ignore it and just bring up the same refuted lie later.
If you can't even point out a problem with that line of reasoning or admit you are wrong, then it is quite clear that you have no intention of ever admitting you are wrong on something like this.
Then once you manage to do the impossible with that, you can do the same with your outright lie that you can fit anything to anything, by either admitting you are wrong with that claim or by fitting a triangle to those 9 data points (and point out what is wrong with my argument as to why that is impossible).
Then you can explain how you manage to have a flat water level on your magical bowl Earth that actually matches the observed oceans rather than flooding some areas of land entirely and leaving regions of oceans completely dry.
Try to actually address the issues rather than just ignoring them or strawmanning them this time.