Compressed visual of an object as opposed to compression of a physical object.
Again, all that compression is, is the lines travelling at an angle and thus getting closer together.
For example:
A 4 m tall tree at 50 m, has a height of 50 m, regardless of how far away it is.
And that corresponds to an angle of (at least assuming you are at the centre of the height) roughly 4.6 degrees.
The "visual compression" is merely light travelling along at that angle to keep it the same angular size.
This means at 25 m distance it will have been "compressed" to what you say is 2 m high.
At 12.5 m, it will have "compressed" to 1 m high.
At 5 m it will be 0.4 m, at 0.5 m it will be 0.04 m, at 0.25 m (25 cm) it will be 0.02 m (2 cm, or less than an inch).
Again, this compression is merely it following the angular lines you say don't exist.
As others said, THIS IS THE BLUE LINE!
This is why I asked you to draw the diagram.
Show the lines the light follows to have a tree visible through a level tube.
You simply cannot do it in a way where you can't see flat, level ground (on a hypothetical FE), but can see more than 1 inch of a tree (through a 1 inch tube).
Again, this is because the distance from the ground to the eye-line gets "compressed" as well.
At those 50 m, the physical distance is 2 m. But with this "visual compression", that corresponds to 1 cm at 25 cm, and thus fits the tube.
Again, your position is self-contradictory. Now draw the diagram, explain what magic stops the blue line, or admit you are wrong.
Do you agree that a tree may look bigger the closer you are to it?
Yes, because it subtends a larger angle. But you claim these angles aren't real.
Now then...ask yourself why the tree is smaller the farther away you are from it?
Because light travels in straight lines, and thus subtends a smaller angle the further away it is.
Do you need a diagram to see this?
I even labelled it small and big so you can really see.
The further away the tree is, the smaller the angle it subtends.
Remember, your vision works based upon angles, not linear dimensions like you want to pretend.
Also seen is that the near tree subtends a larger angle than the end of the tube. The light travelling from the top and bottom of the tree would thus need to go through the wall of the tube and thus it would get blocked. So you only see a small portion of the tree. It's angular size is larger than your FOV through the tube.
But further away the angular size of the tree is smaller. Now it does fit in the FOV of the tube.
Again, there is no need for any of your nonsense "compression", but even with that nonsense you can still see the ground.
Seeing how you've set this up, go and do the one I set out.
Why?
As has been explained to you repeatedly, this alone is enough to show you are wrong.
The tube is larger than the car.
This means the light must be coming in from an angle, and you don't get your magic 1 inch view.
Again, all your garbage does is add in needless complexities and shrink the FOV.
why did you use such a small tube and a decent diameter as well?
If your pure BS is true, it would not matter how wide the tube is nor how long it is.
Bringing it up shows you know you are spouting BS.
So is the aim of your needless complications merely to make the FOV tiny?
How about this, would a setup where you have 10 inch diameter tubes, with the tubes being 2 feet long each, with the total distance from the cross hair to the end of the far tube being 11 feet (in accordance with your diagram) suffice?
Or are you really relying upon a smaller and smaller FOV to pretend there is no FOV?
Again, if you want to appeal to compression and have a diagram like that, then what you need is this:
Notice how here, your FOV is just 2 straight parallel lines. You can see anything inside there.
But notice how after 25 feet the distance between your eye and the ground has been "compressed" to less than 0.5 inches and thus it fits within the FOV?
Again, either way YOU ARE WRONG!
The only way to salvage your claim that you absolutely cannot see the ground through a level tube is if you claim you will only ever see 1 physical of any object when looking through a level tube; that if you were to look at a tree in the distance through a 1 inch tube, you would only see 1 inch of that tree.
A claim which is trivial to show is pure BS as has been done repeatedly in this thread.
Saying you can see more of the tree, but still magically can't see the ground is directly contradicting yourself.