I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.
Yes, you have the right to lie as much as you want, and we have the right to call you out on those lies.
You mention evidence but evidence is neither here nor there in terms of being factual.
Meanwhile, I provided an irrefutable logical argument you just repeatedly ignore.
Do you keep ignoring it because you can't just dismiss it as fake as instead of being evidence it is an actual proof that you are wrong?
You're obviously well within your rights to follow the model handed to you on a plate.....and, yes, it has been handed to you on a plate, as it has been to just about all of us. You choose to accept it based on the so called evidence that is pushed as factual but something you do not know to actually be that.
Stop lying.
We accept it based upon the mountains of evidence to support it, some of which we have obtained ourselves, some of which clearly refutes the idea that Earth is flat.
Stop acting like we are just accepting whatever BS we are told. If we were doing that, we would accept your BS.
This is the exact point I'm making. The distance we all see, individuually, is our very own horizon line due to that convergence of our very own sight.
Yes, that is one of the many lies you keep repeating, but it is just that, a lie.
We can see objects beyond the horizon, so it clearly isn't some magical limit to vision.
We can also use various tools which enhance our ability to see, and they cannot get any further past the horizon than we can, so it clearly isn't some magical limit to vision.
It has to be level. It cannot be anything else.
Except as repeatedly shown, it can be and is.
You are yet to provide any justification for why it magically must be level. Meanwhile, an irrefutable argument has been provided to you which shows it does not need to be level.
The mere FRACT that there is a convergence kills off the global model, stone dead. Stone dead.
No, it doesn't.
That is simply perspective. It in no way refutes the RE.
However the fact that level parallel lines converge above the horizon shows that Earth is not flat, and that the horizon is not the convergence point.
So rather than killing off the globe, convergence kills your BS.
Have a think on your version of a horizon line. Is this what you think....in bold?
While not him, I think I can answer for him, that is pretty much what it is.
It is the edge of Earth, below which you see land/sea and above which you see sky.
Just like if you pick up any ball, there is an edge, "below" which you see the ball, and "above" which you see the area around the ball.
The horizon is your very own convergence. It has nothing to do with Earth size and everything to do with how far you can see before that convergence (horizon line).
Stop just repeating the same lies.
It clearly has nothing to do with the convergence point, as it is clearly observed to be below the convergence point.
It clearly has nothing to do with the convergence point as optics which magnify things or with better resolution do not allow you to see further.
It clearly has nothing to do with the convergence point as objects don't merely shrink as they approach a horizon infinitely far away, instead they go over the horizon and disappear from the bottom up.
You can see much farther before full convergence (horizon line) the more elevated to get due to a little less atmosphere to impede your view
This directly contradicts the idea of it being the convergence point.
The atmosphere making it hard to see through doesn't magically bring the convergence point closer.
Looking around on a foggy day is all that is needed to realise that.
While you can't see as far, parallel lines don't magically converge much closer, and instead of a clear horizon line, there is just a blur where the ground/sea blurs into sky.
also the angle of your view without looking for your horizon line can ensure you see objects you wouldn't normally have been able to see if you were stood on a level ground looking through more densely packed atmosphere.
And if that was the case optics would make it further away, but they don't.
The distance to the horizon doesn't depend upon what you use to view the horizon. Instead it depends upon your height, because the horizon is due to the curvature of Earth, and the land/sea beyond the horizon (and level with it) is blocked by the horizon.
Now again, care to grow up and address the multitude of issues facing your lies, including the logical arguments which irrefutably show you are wrong?
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?
Here is an example of one of the logical arguments you are yet to engage with in any meaningful way, which clearly shows beyond any 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.
Again, if I truly didn't understand, rather than it just being you repeatedly spouting BS, you would easily address these issues and show just what is wrong with the logical argument. But I suspect you will deflect yet again.