Moutain/horizen round Earth proof

If you were to get on a boat from Hawaii and travel out, you should reach a point at which the ground/water interface is no longer visible, even with magnification. You will still be able to see the mountain peaks though above the horizen. A RE allows for this.
What is the FE explanation?

Don't worry, you will receive a petty remark soon, or a information lacking reference to a person's book/work.

What is the FE explanation?

The bottom half of the mountain is intersected with the vanishing point.

So would the top of the mountain peeks also be intersected with the vanishing point then?

Quote

What is the FE explanation?

The bottom half of the mountain is intersected with the vanishing point.

I didn't say half.
The amount of the mountain visible will vary directly in relation to the distance from the island. Since the base of the mountain is actually closer than the peak, both should remain visible until both recede beyond the vanishing point. Is this correct?
This will not happen. The peak will be the last thing visible as you move further and further away.

Don't worry dyno, there are plenty of petty remarks to be recycled, again, and yes, some information lacking reference to a person's book/work.

Quote

What is the FE explanation?

The bottom half of the mountain is intersected with the vanishing point.

which of course doesn't make a lick of goddamned sense, nor has it ever.  except to you and rowbotham.  your "rules of perspective" only work in your own jumbled, ignorant brain.

so how does FE theory explain this?

so how does FE theory explain this?

It doesn't. It just stands in the background mumbling to itself as the sane people laugh at it.

Quote

What is the FE explanation?

The bottom half of the mountain is intersected with the vanishing point.

He said "even with magnification." 

re: "how does fe explain a mountain half sunken behind a horizon of water?"

bishop: "the bottom half of the mountain is intersected with the vanishing point.  magnification would restore the mountains."

re: "then how do you explain this?" (high-zoom image of horizon and sunken mountains the same)

bishop: "you did not follow the requirements specified in rowbotham's 'earth not a globe'."

re: "i don't care about pseudoscientific/antiscientific claptrap like rowbotham's enag.  let's talk science.  let's talk reality.  let's talk about ideas that weren't a laughing stock of then, and aren't now.  but ok, for kicks - what are rowbotham's specific requirements?"

bishop: "newton's reflector telescope."

re: "huh?  rowbatham never even documented any of his equipment, other than saying his telescope was 'very good'.  my bicycle is 'very good'.  but its not going to win any 'precision scientific equipment' awards.  furthermore, the sketches clearly show rowbotham using a handheld refractor spotting scope.  ...though i'm sure it's a 'very good' one."

bishop: "that's just the rules.  that i just made up and change to suit whatever argument i'm losing.  you must use newton's personal reflector.  since you don't have it, fe wins."

re: "no it doesn't.  here are more images with far more angular resolution than rowbotham could have acheived in his time with a refractor.  they are even way past the point of atmospheric visibility anyway, so more zoom will just make things bigger and blurrier, with no increase in angular resolution."

bishop: "these images to not correspond to fe theory.  therefore, they are obviously fake, or you are lying, or you have applied some kind of hallucinogenic power to them to confuse me.  you lose.  fe wins."

probably quite accurate cpt bthimes. you've saved us going through the motions of that conversation.