why do you believe?

Quote from: Sir_Drainsalot on June 03, 2009, 12:32:08 PM

Just going to jump back in here with a question for roundy.

You say that EA explains the curvature of the earth when viewed from altitude:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:09:24 PM

There's plenty of evidence for the distortion.  Sunsets, disappearing ships, and the curved appearance of the Earth from far above are all evidence for electromagnetic acceleration.

But, if it makes the earth appear significantly curved from high altitude, then it must surely make the earth appear very slightly curved even from ground level.

But according to you:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.

So why cant you see this minute curvature with your own eyes?

Why, for the same reason you claim the curvature of the Earth is too minute to see.  It's a matter of scale.

So given that FE and RE both predict the same view from ground level, what reasons do you have for supporting one over the other?

Also I have to take issue with this quote:

You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.

But youre eyes arent telling you thats its flat. You just admitted that there is curvature but you cant see it. Yet you insist that youre eyes arent decieving you.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:52:34 PM

Quote from: Sir_Drainsalot on June 03, 2009, 12:32:08 PM

Just going to jump back in here with a question for roundy.

You say that EA explains the curvature of the earth when viewed from altitude:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:09:24 PM

There's plenty of evidence for the distortion.  Sunsets, disappearing ships, and the curved appearance of the Earth from far above are all evidence for electromagnetic acceleration.

But, if it makes the earth appear significantly curved from high altitude, then it must surely make the earth appear very slightly curved even from ground level.

But according to you:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.

So why cant you see this minute curvature with your own eyes?

Why, for the same reason you claim the curvature of the Earth is too minute to see.  It's a matter of scale.

So given that FE and RE both predict the same view from ground level, what reasons do you have for supporting one over the other?

The fact that I haven't seen sufficient evidence that the Earth is round.

Also I have to take issue with this quote:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.

But youre eyes arent telling you thats its flat. You just admitted that there is curvature but you cant see it. Yet you insist that youre eyes arent decieving you.

Well, my eyes do tell me it's flat.  And I'm "insisting" no such thing.  I've stated many times that I'm open to the possibility that the Earth is round.  I just haven't seen sufficient evidence that this is so.

Quote from: Sir_Drainsalot on June 03, 2009, 12:57:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:52:34 PM

Quote from: Sir_Drainsalot on June 03, 2009, 12:32:08 PM

Just going to jump back in here with a question for roundy.

You say that EA explains the curvature of the earth when viewed from altitude:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:09:24 PM

There's plenty of evidence for the distortion.  Sunsets, disappearing ships, and the curved appearance of the Earth from far above are all evidence for electromagnetic acceleration.

But, if it makes the earth appear significantly curved from high altitude, then it must surely make the earth appear very slightly curved even from ground level.

But according to you:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.

So why cant you see this minute curvature with your own eyes?

Why, for the same reason you claim the curvature of the Earth is too minute to see.  It's a matter of scale.

So given that FE and RE both predict the same view from ground level, what reasons do you have for supporting one over the other?

The fact that I haven't seen sufficient evidence that the Earth is round

And I havent seen sufficient evidence that the earth is flat. Here we go again.

I'll put my evidence on the table then. NASA. There, I said it. You want to cry conspiracy? Go right ahead then. Say the photos/videos/satellite sightings are all faked. What evidence do you have that there is a conspiracy?

I'll answer for you: Because the earth is flat, so they must be lying. Yet you say:

I've stated many times that I'm open to the possibility that the Earth is round.  I just haven't seen sufficient evidence that this is so.

Youre not really open to the possibilty then are you? Like I said earlier youre in an unattackable position. Youve decided in advance that because the earth appears flat (even though it actually appears slightly curved), then it is flat. I show you some possible evidence that it isnt (stuff from NASA) and you say it must be faked, because the earth is flat.

Heres a simple question then. What "sufficient evidence" is needed? I'll give you that photos/videos dont prove it either way. OK, what do you want? 

The earth appears flat from out location. The burden of proof is on RE to prove themselves right.

Um, that I understand scale just fine.

Which was demonstrated in what way?

And at the same time demonstrated why it was flawed.  Thank you.

It demonstrated how your logic was flawed.

It's not based on my own personal observation.  It's just another abstraction, made to fit your hypothesis.

You can go get a microscope and a basketball if you wish. Then it would be your own personal observation, and not just another abstraction.

Actually I have and I can tell you I had no problem discerning its overall shape, even when I was right next to it.  Again you make a point that only supports my hypothesis.

Then you must have been looking at some pretty plain skyscrapers. I just walked past the Sears Tower (Willis Tower) a few months ago. Standing next to it, you can't see the distinct shape or the needles. It just looks like any other skyscraper.

You haven't provided any examples that prove that the view from far above is a more reliable indicator than the view from up close.  I would go so far as to suggest that the problem itself is so unique that proof by examples just don't cut it, unless you can provide an analogy on the same scale as what we're talking about (you haven't yet).

The thing about scale is you just have to have the same ratio. I already provided an example with a smaller scale involving objects you are capable of seeing the entirety of. It's also simple geometry. Even from an altitude of 1km, the horizon would only have a 1.6 degree curve. That would not result in a distinct curvature between you and the horizon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizon

So I'm not seeing an object if I'm just observing a part of it?  I can't tell anything about an object unless I'm considering it in its entirety?

If you're seeing very little of an object, you can tell very little about an object's shape based on what you see.

Again, irrelevant to my point.  I see the Earth is flat; I demand sufficient evidence that I'm incorrect.  I haven't seen it.  Therefore I trust my observation that the Earth is flat.

You don't see the earth in its entirety, so how can you "see the earth is flat"?

Maybe I glossed over it because I already addressed it in my first post in this thread.  Reread it.

I did. You never addressed it. When you do finally answer it, an explanation and diagram would be great.

I'm surprised you missed it.  It was right at the beginning of the post.  The explanation is there; frankly I don't understand what you want me to diagram.

You say the earth is flat because it looks flat, and in RET, it is some kind of an illusion. That is not the case. Geometry says there would be no significant curvature while observing a giant sphere from it's surface. There is no illusion, and there is no reason to assume the earth is flat based on what you see out your window. You can't say the earth must be flat because you don't notice any curvature. You know that because of the size of the earth, any curvature wouldn't be apparent, so you can't draw any conclusions based on your limited observations (due to gravitation or upward acceleration or whatever you want to call it). If what you see is incompatible with earth being a sphere with a 24,902 mile circumference without some sort of illusion or deception as you suggest, then explain and diagram.

The one is synonymous with the other.

No. Your eyes see a flat surface. Your mind should tell you this flat surface may have a very slight curvature which you are not capable of noticing, but it is possible that it is part of of very,very large sphere. Your mind is failing you, not your eyes.

No doubt.  Now prove that the Earth is actually round based on this statement.

I'm not trying to prove the earth is round. I'm trying to understand why you think FET is the most logical assumption when your observations contradict neither theory, and there is no evidence to suggest the earth is actually flat.

If you'd pay attention, I'm not claiming that anything that has been brought up has been fake.  I'm a bit insulted because I've actually gone to great lengths to not blame images from above as part of the Conspiracy in this thread.  Please don't attack strawmen if you want to be taken seriously.

If you've never seen photographs of the earth from space, then you must be living in a cave somewhere. You said you used to believe the earth was round because that's what NASA, your school, and your government led you to believe. It is a reasonable assumption that during that leading you were shown photographs of earth. If you've seen these photographs, but you don't believe the earth is round, then you obviously agree with all the other FET'ers in thinking they were faked. How do you explain this photo if it wasn't faked?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=885

The earth appears flat from out location. The burden of proof is on RE to prove themselves right.

Are you suggesting the earth's appearance from the surface is evidence that the earth isn't round? Considering the size of the earth, your observations wouldn't suggest one theory over the other. What kind of proof are you expecting?

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 03, 2009, 01:21:52 PM

The earth appears flat from out location. The burden of proof is on RE to prove themselves right.

Are you suggesting the earth's appearance from the surface is evidence that the earth isn't round? Considering the size of the earth, your observations wouldn't suggest one theory over the other. What kind of proof are you expecting?

The earth appears flat from our location. RE is suggesting something contrary. The burden of proof is on the RET.

The earth appears flat from our location. RE is suggesting something contrary. The burden of proof is on the RET.

RET does not contradict your observation. In fact, geometry shows that on a round earth, there would be very little curvature between you and the horizon, so it would appear flat.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:36:59 PM

Um, that I understand scale just fine.

Which was demonstrated in what way?

See the quote from that post that was in the post you're quoting here.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:36:59 PM

And at the same time demonstrated why it was flawed.  Thank you.

It demonstrated how your logic was flawed.

Not in the least.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:36:59 PM

It's not based on my own personal observation.  It's just another abstraction, made to fit your hypothesis.

You can go get a microscope and a basketball if you wish. Then it would be your own personal observation, and not just another abstraction.

Unfortunately it would prove nothing about the shape of the Earth.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:36:59 PM

Actually I have and I can tell you I had no problem discerning its overall shape, even when I was right next to it.  Again you make a point that only supports my hypothesis.

Then you must have been looking at some pretty plain skyscrapers. I just walked past the Sears Tower (Willis Tower) a few months ago. Standing next to it, you can't see the distinct shape or the needles. It just looks like any other skyscraper.

Oh, I thought you were talking about the overall shape, which I can discern just fine at the base of the Sears Tower.  Of course you can't see every little detail but even if you could what would it prove about the shape of the Earth?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:36:59 PM

You haven't provided any examples that prove that the view from far above is a more reliable indicator than the view from up close.  I would go so far as to suggest that the problem itself is so unique that proof by examples just don't cut it, unless you can provide an analogy on the same scale as what we're talking about (you haven't yet).

The thing about scale is you just have to have the same ratio. I already provided an example with a smaller scale involving objects you are capable of seeing the entirety of.

Your example completely ignores the fact that at large scales such as what we're talking about with the shape of the Earth there's that phenomenal distance between the observer and the Earth.  Looking at a basketball with it right in front of my face doesn't even begin to compare.  I'm sorry, but again I'm not denying that if I were a tiny ant on the surface of a basketball it would look flat.  I don't deny the points you make about scale.  They are just irrelevant to my overall point, which is that there's no inherent reason to trust the view from afar more than from up close.  When you're ready to drop this crap about scale and talk about why that should be the case please let me know.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 01, 2009, 02:14:03 PM

If you'd pay attention, I'm not claiming that anything that has been brought up has been fake.  I'm a bit insulted because I've actually gone to great lengths to not blame images from above as part of the Conspiracy in this thread.  Please don't attack strawmen if you want to be taken seriously.

If you've never seen photographs of the earth from space, then you must be living in a cave somewhere. You said you used to believe the earth was round because that's what NASA, your school, and your government led you to believe. It is a reasonable assumption that during that leading you were shown photographs of earth. If you've seen these photographs, but you don't believe the earth is round, then you obviously agree with all the other FET'ers in thinking they were faked. How do you explain this photo if it wasn't faked?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=885

Well I was trying to avoid controversy by bringing up the Conspiracy in this thread but if you're going to force it down my throat anyway, yes, I believe that picture was faked.  Can we get back on topic now?

Unfortunately it would prove nothing about the shape of the Earth.

It wasn't supposed to.

Oh, I thought you were talking about the overall shape, which I can discern just fine at the base of the Sears Tower.  Of course you can't see every little detail but even if you could what would it prove about the shape of the Earth?

Standing next to it, it looks like it could very well be a rectangle. I couldn't even recognize it as being the sears tower. It has a very distinct shape. That example shows that the immediate view you have of an object isn't always the best for determining its shape, especially when you can't see the entire shape.

Your example completely ignores the fact that at large scales such as what we're talking about with the shape of the Earth there's that phenomenal distance between the observer and the Earth.  Looking at a basketball with it right in front of my face doesn't even begin to compare.  I'm sorry, but again I'm not denying that if I were a tiny ant on the surface of a basketball it would look flat.  I don't deny the points you make about scale.  They are just irrelevant to my overall point, which is that there's no inherent reason to trust the view from afar more than from up close.  When you're ready to drop this crap about scale and talk about why that should be the case please let me know.

Once again, it is about ratio. The distance between you and the object should be relative to the size of the object. It's not about "trusting" your view, its about actually having a view of the object. You can't see the earth's shape unless your view of it is as good as your view of the hypothetical basketball. When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.

Well I was trying to avoid controversy by bringing up the Conspiracy in this thread but if you're going to force it down my throat anyway, yes, I believe that picture was faked.  Can we get back on topic now?

Why did you go out of your way to point out you never questioned the authenticity of photos in this thread when my assumption was clearly correct? As far as the topic goes, I think I got my answer. There is no logical reason to assume the earth is flat, you just want to believe.

When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.

It's logical because it's based on personal experience.  I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.

Quote from: cdenley on June 03, 2009, 04:41:20 PM

When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.

It's logical because it's based on personal experience.  I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.

So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?

I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.

Wouldn't you agree?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 04:50:07 PM

Quote from: cdenley on June 03, 2009, 04:41:20 PM

When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.

It's logical because it's based on personal experience.  I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.

So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?

I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.

Wouldn't you agree?

Well, no.  It's like Plato's allegory of the cave.  You can think you have all the answers but a look at the wider picture can prove you wrong about everything.  At least I base my assumption on something I can personally verify.  I leave plenty of room for error.  I just want irrefutable proof that I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm a bit skeptical.  I think you need to be, in this day and age.

Quote from: svenanders on June 03, 2009, 04:56:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 04:50:07 PM

Quote from: cdenley on June 03, 2009, 04:41:20 PM

When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.

It's logical because it's based on personal experience.  I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.

So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?

I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.

Wouldn't you agree?

Well, no.  It's like Plato's allegory of the cave.  You can think you have all the answers but a look at the wider picture can prove you wrong about everything.  At least I base my assumption on something I can personally verify.  I leave plenty of room for error.  I just want irrefutable proof that I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm a bit skeptical.  I think you need to be, in this day and age.

Do you think you got all the answers?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 05:02:47 PM

Quote from: svenanders on June 03, 2009, 04:56:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 04:50:07 PM

Quote from: cdenley on June 03, 2009, 04:41:20 PM

When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.

It's logical because it's based on personal experience.  I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.

So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?

I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.

Wouldn't you agree?

Well, no.  It's like Plato's allegory of the cave.  You can think you have all the answers but a look at the wider picture can prove you wrong about everything.  At least I base my assumption on something I can personally verify.  I leave plenty of room for error.  I just want irrefutable proof that I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm a bit skeptical.  I think you need to be, in this day and age.

Do you think you got all the answers?

Of course not.

Quote from: svenanders on June 03, 2009, 05:09:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 05:02:47 PM

Quote from: svenanders on June 03, 2009, 04:56:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 04:50:07 PM

Quote from: cdenley on June 03, 2009, 04:41:20 PM

When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.

It's logical because it's based on personal experience.  I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.

So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?

I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.

Wouldn't you agree?

Well, no.  It's like Plato's allegory of the cave.  You can think you have all the answers but a look at the wider picture can prove you wrong about everything.  At least I base my assumption on something I can personally verify.  I leave plenty of room for error.  I just want irrefutable proof that I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm a bit skeptical.  I think you need to be, in this day and age.

Do you think you got all the answers?

Of course not.

Do you then agree that the shape of the earth could be something other then flat,
when looking only at a fraction of it?
Considering that the earth is proven to be quite big compared to a human.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 05:12:21 PM

Quote from: svenanders on June 03, 2009, 05:09:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 05:02:47 PM

Quote from: svenanders on June 03, 2009, 04:56:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 04:50:07 PM

Quote from: cdenley on June 03, 2009, 04:41:20 PM

When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.

It's logical because it's based on personal experience.  I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.

So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?

I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.

Wouldn't you agree?

Well, no.  It's like Plato's allegory of the cave.  You can think you have all the answers but a look at the wider picture can prove you wrong about everything.  At least I base my assumption on something I can personally verify.  I leave plenty of room for error.  I just want irrefutable proof that I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm a bit skeptical.  I think you need to be, in this day and age.

Do you think you got all the answers?

Of course not.

Do you then agree that the shape of the earth could be something other then flat,
when looking only at a fraction of it?
Considering that the earth is proven to be quite big compared to a human.

I've never denied it.

It's logical because it's based on personal experience.  I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.

Except we already established that your personal experience doesn't contradict RET or FET, so why do you assume FET is correct until you are shown proof which cannot exist since you claim any proof to be fraudulent.

And to suggest that observation far above the Earth is more reliable than right at the surface is even more ludicrous.  On what grounds should it inherently be taken for granted that a distant view is more to be trusted than an immediate one?

Thankyou for your time.
[/quote]

How is that even an argument?

Yes this would be correct. And it is what I am saying. This is why the view from far above the Earth is more reliable than your "direct and immediate" observations, and answers your question "on what grounds"...

Great. But from aeroplanes it looks flat, too!

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 04, 2009, 03:38:31 AM

But from aeroplanes it looks flat, too!

No. The horizon still looks flat. But bizarrely, the higher up you go the further away the (flat) horizon is.

So what? When you go up a tall building, you can see further than if you were on the ground.  How is this relevant? This is extensively explained in other threads. Look them up.

Quote from: KillaBee on June 04, 2009, 03:10:03 AM

Yes this would be correct. And it is what I am saying. This is why the view from far above the Earth is more reliable than your "direct and immediate" observations, and answers your question "on what grounds"...

Great. But from aeroplanes it looks flat, too!

You're not going high enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizon

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 04, 2009, 03:38:31 AM

But from aeroplanes it looks flat, too!

No. The horizon still looks flat. But bizarrely, the higher up you go the further away the (flat) horizon is.

Rookie error. The atmolayer is thinner at higher altitudes, and the thickness of the atmolayer is a limiting factor in distance of visibility.

You don't get it - it's a rookie error because it's commonly made by clueless globularists. You haven't been around long enough to watch us repeatedly debunk it as a criticism.

Your response is nonsense. At a certain point, reduction of transparency by the compounded imperfection over a long stretch of air renders vision impossible. When the air is thinner, this point is further from the the point of observation. Even globularists (sensible ones) are aware of the fact that the air becomes thinner the higher you go.

You don't get it - it's a rookie error because it's commonly made by clueless globularists. You haven't been around long enough to watch us repeatedly debunk it as a criticism.

Your response is nonsense. At a certain point, reduction of transparency by the compounded imperfection over a long stretch of air renders vision impossible. When the air is thinner, this point is further from the the point of observation. Even globularists (sensible ones) are aware of the fact that the air becomes thinner the higher you go.

The problem is that if the horizon was the result of the air's opacity, then there wouldn't be a horizon because visibility would gradually fade. However, when you can see the horizon, it stops at a particular point. From a higher elevation, this point is further away. This can't be explained by your visibility theory.

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 05, 2009, 10:19:59 AM

You don't get it - it's a rookie error because it's commonly made by clueless globularists. You haven't been around long enough to watch us repeatedly debunk it as a criticism.

Your response is nonsense. At a certain point, reduction of transparency by the compounded imperfection over a long stretch of air renders vision impossible. When the air is thinner, this point is further from the the point of observation. Even globularists (sensible ones) are aware of the fact that the air becomes thinner the higher you go.

The problem is that if the horizon was the result of the air's opacity, then there wouldn't be a horizon because visibility would gradually fade. However, when you can see the horizon, it stops at a particular point. From a higher elevation, this point is further away. This can't be explained by your visibility theory.

Actually, his theory explains that perfectly.

Actually, his theory explains that perfectly.

Then please elaborate how imperfections in air can cause a sudden end of visibility at a specific point.

If curvature rather than air quality is a limiting factor on distance of visibility, why is it that I can see further on a clear day? Does the curvature of the Earth contract and relax depending on how foggy it is?

No. Y'see what you've done there is deliberately confuse "curvature" with "air quality".

Let me explain.

Fog is a mixture of water droplets and other impurities suspended in the air which make it difficult to see. It's a bit like being in a cloud! When there is a large amount of fog in the air we sometimes call it "foggy". The "horizon" is the apparant boundary which limits the furthest you can see. At sea level this is about 5km. When it is "foggy" (water droplets) this sometimes means we cannot see all the way to the "horizon".

So air quality is the limiting factor. Got it.

Quote

No. Y'see what you've done there is deliberately confuse "curvature" with "air quality".

Let me explain.

Fog is a mixture of water droplets and other impurities suspended in the air which make it difficult to see. It's a bit like being in a cloud! When there is a large amount of fog in the air we sometimes call it "foggy". The "horizon" is the apparant boundary which limits the furthest you can see. At sea level this is about 5km. When it is "foggy" (water droplets) this sometimes means we cannot see all the way to the "horizon".

So air quality is the limiting factor. Got it.

Air quality is a limiting factor.  Air quality is not the only limiting factor.