How do roundies explain away high-altitude photos/footage of the flat Earth?

Quote from: Logick on October 01, 2017, 03:09:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:03:58 PM

What shape do you believe the earth to be and what . . . observations prove it?

Have you looked out your window? RET is pure theorization. It's not directly observable.

The path of the sun from different places at different times proves a round earth..

Well, no. It merely suggests it. You don't know what "proof" is, dumbass.

The maths prove it.

Mathematics is not empirical evidence. You asked about observations.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:14:12 PM

Quote from: Logick on October 01, 2017, 03:09:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:03:58 PM

What shape do you believe the earth to be and what . . . observations prove it?

Have you looked out your window? RET is pure theorization. It's not directly observable.

The path of the sun from different places at different times proves a round earth..

Well, no. It merely suggests it. You don't know what "proof" is, dumbass.

Personal abuse proves you have no case.

What does the path of the sun show then?  Plus satellite dish alignment.

Determining how far away the horizon is is the only way to know what the perceived curvature would be.

I would say a simulation would be easier due to the complex math involved including the dependence on the FOV and the camera.

I never changed my position, I thought it was pretty clear from my first post when I said "it would be x distance in every direction".

Bullshit. You have been changing back and forth repeatedly.
It was pretty clear from your first post where you stated the curvature is much less than what RE math indicates it should be, where you then claimed that because the horizon is x distance away, you should see a portion of a great circle corresponding to 2x, which you even backed up by answering yes when asked if that was what you meant.
But you made it much less clear when you directly contradicted that and stated the great circle is not your horizon.

Once more, I'll ask, do you have any math at all contradicting mine and giving a more accurate answer, or not?

Again, your math is not the issue, your baseless which are not based upon math, are.

I understand that taking an arbitrary slice of the horizon line given a section of the circle created by the horizon is a great circle

Clearly you don't.
The great circle is not the horizon.
It is a completely different circle.

Again, what I have shown is exactly the same as what would be the visible portion of the green circle in the illustration. They use the same method I used to determine distance to the horizon.

No it isn't.
You were indicating the horizon should be the black circle inside the green circle, that that is the curvature you should expect to see.

*still no math*

Please just provide to me the math that proves you;re correct so we can move on. Again, and I don't know how you can't understand this, if you don't have it, you're wrong.

>I have not seen any such evidence.
>I did [see such evidence].

No. Your confusion is coming from what you think is evidence vs what actually is evidence.
It is more like this:
>I have not seen the evidence you claim exists to support a FE.
>I have seen the video you posted in the OP, which is not evidence for a FE.

Have you looked out your window? RET is pure theorization. It's not directly observable.

Yes I have, and I saw a nice clear sharp horizon which wasn't the edge of the FE, directly confirming RET.
The predictions of RET are directly observable.
It is FE BS that is not observable at all.

Well, no. It merely suggests it. You don't know what "proof" is, dumbass.

For once you are almost right. It is not "proof" as science deals with evidence, not proof.
But it isn't just merely suggesting a RE.
It is very strong evidence in favour of a RE and very strong evidence against a FE, especially when considered with Occam's razor as the FE explanation requires so much extra BS to try and explain it, it isn't funny making RE a much simpler explanation and thus more scientific and more likely to be true.

The green line should be straight, not curved.

The green line should be straight, not curved.

Are you retarded?

Please just provide to me the math that proves you;re correct so we can move on. Again, and I don't know how you can't understand this, if you don't have it, you're wrong.

Again, here is the math (remember, math isn't just a bunch of equations, math can be graphical):

This shows that the curve you are seeing is not the great circle and thus it does not have the curvature you claim.

How about you show the math which shows you should see that curvature you claim you should be capable of seeing, not as a great circle, but as the horizon.

I do understand this. I have provided the math, you are just ignoring it.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:24:36 PM

The green line should be straight, not curved.

Are you retarded?

No he isn't.
Are you?
It depends upon what projection you are using.
If you are using an orthographic projection, then the green line should be straight across.

The green line is the intersection of a plane with the sphere of Earth.
If you are viewing that along the plane, should it be straight or curved?

Here is an imperfect example:


The lines of latitude (down to the equator) correspond to the green circle for various viewer heights with the viewer above the north pole.
Notice how they are pretty straight?

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:24:36 PM

The green line should be straight, not curved.

Are you retarded?

Why should the centre of the line be lower than the ends if is this a side view?  The view from the ISS would be a circle with a diameter someone can calculate

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 03:25:17 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:24:36 PM

The green line should be straight, not curved.

Are you retarded?

No he isn't.
Are you?
It depends upon what projection you are using.
If you are using an orthographic projection, then the green line should be straight across.

The green line is the intersection of a plane with the sphere of Earth.
If you are viewing that along the plane, should it be straight or curved?

Here is an imperfect example:


The lines of latitude (down to the equator) correspond to the green circle for various viewer heights with the viewer above the north pole.
Notice how they are pretty straight?

Okay, so if that's true, you should quite literally never see the curvature of the Earth unless you're many thousands of miles away. Is this what you're saying?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 03:21:30 PM

Please just provide to me the math that proves you;re correct so we can move on. Again, and I don't know how you can't understand this, if you don't have it, you're wrong.

Again, here is the math (remember, math isn't just a bunch of equations, math can be graphical):

This shows that the curve you are seeing is not the great circle and thus it does not have the curvature you claim.

How about you show the math which shows you should see that curvature you claim you should be capable of seeing, not as a great circle, but as the horizon.

I do understand this. I have provided the math, you are just ignoring it.

Numbers, please. You still haven't shown your work. I've shown my work and explained how I believe it to be correct. You haven't done anything close to this.

Again, give me math and numbers or shut up about it and concede. Those are your options.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 03:25:17 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:24:36 PM

The green line should be straight, not curved.

Are you retarded?

Why should the centre of the line be lower than the ends if is this a side view?  The view from the ISS would be a circle with a diameter someone can calculate

What are you even talking about? That picture is from a roundie website and shows the circle the ISS should see based on the Pythagorean Theorem. Again I'll ask, what are you going on about?

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:03:58 PM

What shape do you believe the earth to be and what . . . observations prove it?

Have you looked out your window? RET is pure theorization. It's not directly observable.

The view from my window is somewhat inconclusive on a question of whether the earth is flat or a large sphere, but the near horizon suggests the latter. How about yours?

That the earth is a sphere is directly observable from space, however:

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:27:40 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 03:25:17 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:24:36 PM

The green line should be straight, not curved.

Are you retarded?

Why should the centre of the line be lower than the ends if is this a side view?  The view from the ISS would be a circle with a diameter someone can calculate

What are you even talking about? That picture is from a roundie website and shows the circle the ISS should see based on the Pythagorean Theorem. Again I'll ask, what are you going on about?

It correctly shows the radius, the green line makes no sense.

See https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/new-in-10/entity-based-geocomputation/see-what-the-international-space-station-can-see.html

Okay, so if that's true, you should quite literally never see the curvature of the Earth unless you're many thousands of miles away. Is this what you're saying?

No. These lines do not represent the horizon as viewed by you.

In this example you are above the north pole, looking at these lines.
That is a completely different view to you being quite far away looking at it from the side.

It depends on several factors, including the direction you are looking at and what you are using to view it.

If you use a wide angle lens where the y position on the photo is based upon the vertical angular offset from the centre of the FOV, and you have the camera level, then the horizon will always appear as a straight line. You can even stitch multiple such photos together into a 360 degree panorama.
But if you angle this camera up or down (or use a different camera which doesn't have this property) that will no longer be true.

The apparent curvature is not easy to calculate. It is much simpler to use a program like POV-Ray to simulate it and figure it out.

Numbers, please. You still haven't shown your work.

I provided you numbers before, and used the same working as you.

Assuming the curve of Earth isn't all that significant (the error isn't great enough to matter), then the distance to the horizon (the black circle) is x.
The great circle (the red line), is off at 45 degrees at one point and touching the horizon at another point.
This forms a 45 degree, right angle isosceles triangle. That means, using pythagoras (or trig if you like), the distance along the hypotenuse is sqrt(x^2+x^2).
That means off at 45 degrees, that great circle is sqrt(2)*x away from you.
This puts it past the horizon and thus you are not seeing the great circle as your horizon.

Happy now?
If you need the numbers as well, then as I put in earlier, 683.7 km is x, the distance to the horizon. Thus the distance to the great circle at 45 degrees will be 966.9 km.
966.9 km is more than 683.7 km. As such, the great circle will be past the horizon and thus hidden by it.

I've shown my work and explained how I believe it to be correct. You haven't done anything close to this.

No you haven't.
You said what kind of working you did, then just gave a number, and then asserted that was the curvature you should be seeing, without providing any backing at all.

Quote from: Logick on October 01, 2017, 02:39:12 PM

>I have not seen any such evidence.
>I did [see such evidence].

No. Your confusion is coming from what you think is evidence vs what actually is evidence.

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 30, 2017, 06:05:12 PM

Anyway, yeah, I know what evidence is...

Well, you don't. Allow me to explain what evidence is. In logic, an argument consists of three parts:

• Premise
• Supporting evidence
• Conclusion

Anything can be used as evidence in support of a premise. Whether evidence is conclusive, or even convincing, is another matter entirely. Saying that I have not provided evidence is akin to saying I merely provided a premise and conclusion. If that's what you think, then you are a blind 'tard.

Yes I have, and I saw a nice clear sharp horizon which wasn't the edge of the FE, directly confirming RET.

Well, it doesn't directly confirm RET, lmao. The only way to directly confirm it is to observe the Earth from many miles above the surface to be a ball. I'm still unsure as to why you believe a "sharp horizon" even suggests a round Earth.

The predictions of RET are directly observable.

So are those of FET.

It is FE BS that is not observable at all.

Didn't you just say you've looked out your window?

Quote from: Logick on October 01, 2017, 03:15:58 PM

Well, no. It merely suggests it. You don't know what "proof" is, dumbass.

For once you are almost right. It is not "proof" as science deals with evidence, not proof.

But you don't know what evidence is.

It is very strong evidence in favour of a RE and very strong evidence against a FE, especially when considered with Occam's razor as the FE explanation requires so much extra BS to try and explain it..

How much more BS beyond looking out your window does FET require? Do you have any idea how complex RET is??

Here is an example from a POV-ray simulation:


This is a simulation of Earth (with a yellow ball to show the centre of the frame, it is 5km in diameter and 50 km from the camera) from 82 km high with a 120 degree wide angle lens.

Notice how the apparent curvature varies dramatically depending upon viewing angle?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 03:32:56 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:27:40 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 03:25:17 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:24:36 PM

The green line should be straight, not curved.

Are you retarded?

Why should the centre of the line be lower than the ends if is this a side view?  The view from the ISS would be a circle with a diameter someone can calculate

What are you even talking about? That picture is from a roundie website and shows the circle the ISS should see based on the Pythagorean Theorem. Again I'll ask, what are you going on about?

It correctly shows the radius, the green line makes no sense.

See https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/new-in-10/entity-based-geocomputation/see-what-the-international-space-station-can-see.html

You're still not really making any sense. The link you put even shows a circle on the map.

If you need the numbers as well, then as I put in earlier, 683.7 km is x, the distance to the horizon.

What are we arguing about if we agree that this is the distance to the horizon? Show me the curve we should see, assuming I'm wrong.

Allow me to explain what evidence is. In logic, an argument consists of three parts:

• Premise
• Supporting evidence
• Conclusion

Anything can be used as evidence in support of a premise. Whether evidence is conclusive, or even convincing, is another matter entirely. Saying that I have not provided evidence is akin to saying I merely provided a premise and conclusion. If that's what you think, then you are a blind 'tard.

Nope.
In logic, an argument consists of 2 parts:

• Premise
• Conclusion.

Often it isn't as simple as that and instead goes something more like this:

• P1
• P2
• C1
• P3
• C4

Etc.
No where in a logic argument is evidence presented.
The only thing which comes close to it are the premises. But this is not evidence themselves. They are premises which are taken to be true.

If you want to treat these premises as evidence, then that is fine, but they need to be relevant, i.e. premises from which the conclusion actually follows.
Even with your definition this is implied by saying they must be in support of a premise.
If it is not in support of it it is not evidence. That doesn't mean you just gave a premise and conclusion.

For example, is this an argument which consists of just a premise and conclusion:
If Earth is flat you shouldn't have a sharp horizon except as the edge.
Potato.
Thus Earth is round.

The premise is simple:
"If Earth is flat you shouldn't have a sharp horizon except as the edge."
As is the conclusion:
"Thus Earth is round."

But is that all that was provided?
No.
I also provided "Potato".
This is just irrelevant crap. It is not evidence, nor is it a premise or a conclusion.

What you provided is not evidence that Earth is flat.

Well, it doesn't directly confirm RET, lmao.

This has already been explained.
That sharp horizon is the edge of Earth. It shouldn't be visible on a FE, as the atmosphere would obstruct vision to it.
As such, it is direct confirmation of a round Earth.

I'm still unsure as to why you believe a "sharp horizon" even suggests a round Earth.

Because you continually ignore my explanations of why.
If you are unsure perhaps you can try providing an explanation of why you should observe a sharp horizon a few km away on a FE?

So are those of FET.

No they aren't.
The predictions of FE BS are completely absent.
The only ones which are superficially here are those which are consistent with RET within error.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 01, 2017, 03:23:00 PM

It is FE BS that is not observable at all.

Didn't you just say you've looked out your window?

Yes, and rather than that predicted by FE BS, that is the ground fading off into a blur as it gets further away due to the atmosphere obstructing vision to it, I saw a sharp clear horizon as predicted by RET.

How much more BS beyond looking out your window does FET require? Do you have any idea how complex RET is??

Yes, RET is quite simple, at least in comparison to FE BS.
FE BS requires an explanation for why the horizon appears sharp rather than a bur due to the atmosphere limiting visibility. It needs an explanation for why the horizon is further away the higher you are.
It requires an explanation for why the sun appears to rise and set (as do other celestial objects, and even objects on Earth where the only obstruction is water). It also requires an explanation for why these celestial objects appear to remain the same size. And with all these the explanation needs to match what is observed in reality which is consistent with RET.
It also needs to explain the shape of Earth, why things fall, why all the planets appear to orbit the sun and so on.

So FE BS is a lot more complex when you add in explanations for all these things.
Without those explanations it simply doesn't match reality.

You basically have 2 options:
RET,
FET with extra BS to make it act just like RET.

Here is an example from a POV-ray simulation:


This is a simulation of Earth (with a yellow ball to show the centre of the frame, it is 5km in diameter and 50 km from the camera) from 82 km high with a 120 degree wide angle lens.

Notice how the apparent curvature varies dramatically depending upon viewing angle?

Uh, yeah. That's the lens.

You're still not really making any sense. The link you put even shows a circle on the map.

That is when viewed from above, using a mercator projection.
Now imagine viewing that from the side akin to the globe I provided where the green circle would be akin to the Arctic circle.
Is that circle still appearing as a circle? No, it appears as a line.

What are we arguing about if we agree that this is the distance to the horizon? Show me the curve we should see, assuming I'm wrong.

Again, it varies so much depending on the circumstances of viewing it it is impossible to just give one answer. However I provided a gif showing what you should see from various positions.

Regardless, you are wrong.
That is because the curvature you are claiming we should see is the curve of a great circle, which I have shown is beyond the horizon except at one point.
I don't need to show the correct answer to show that you are wrong, I just need to show a problem with your method.
Your method was to calculate the curvature of the great circle, which you have already admitted is beyond the horizon.
As such, your method is wrong.

Uh, yeah. That's the lens.

That's might point. The amount of curvature you see is dependent upon the properties of the lens and the angle you view it from (and the height of the observer).
If you don't want it to be a wide angle lens, then just look at the centre strip of the image.
It still has the same issue. Concave when too low, straight below centre, then convex, and going way to convex at the top.

If you would like a simple tool to see what it should look like, get a ring (a large one like a hoola hoop, or drawing a line on the ground), then view it from various angles/heights (from the centre of the ring) and see what it looks like.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 03:52:00 PM

You're still not really making any sense. The link you put even shows a circle on the map.

That is when viewed from above, using a mercator projection.
Now imagine viewing that from the side akin to the globe I provided where the green circle would be akin to the Arctic circle.
Is that circle still appearing as a circle? No, it appears as a line.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 03:55:39 PM

What are we arguing about if we agree that this is the distance to the horizon? Show me the curve we should see, assuming I'm wrong.

Again, it varies so much depending on the circumstances of viewing it it is impossible to just give one answer. However I provided a gif showing what you should see from various positions.

Regardless, you are wrong.
That is because the curvature you are claiming we should see is the curve of a great circle, which I have shown is beyond the horizon except at one point.
I don't need to show the correct answer to show that you are wrong, I just need to show a problem with your method.
Your method was to calculate the curvature of the great circle, which you have already admitted is beyond the horizon.
As such, your method is wrong.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 04:00:05 PM

Uh, yeah. That's the lens.

That's might point. The amount of curvature you see is dependent upon the properties of the lens and the angle you view it from (and the height of the observer).
If you don't want it to be a wide angle lens, then just look at the centre strip of the image.
It still has the same issue. Concave when too low, straight below centre, then convex, and going way to convex at the top.

If you would like a simple tool to see what it should look like, get a ring (a large one like a hoola hoop, or drawing a line on the ground), then view it from various angles/heights (from the centre of the ring) and see what it looks like.

I disagree. You absolutely need to counter my math and model with yours if you want to be taken seriously. If you're not going to do that, I suppose I'm wasting my energy here.

I disagree. You absolutely need to counter my math and model with yours if you want to be taken seriously.

What is there to disagree.
I did counter it.
I showed what was wrong with it, with you using a great circle to determine curvature when the great circle is hidden by the horizon.
That is all I need to do to show you are wrong.

I even provided an animation showing what the curvature looks like from various angles based upon 1 type of camera.
All cameras suffer from the same kind of issues where the curve seen depends upon how you look at it.
Here is a reference which discusses some of these:
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Camera#Types_of_Projection

If you're not going to do that, I suppose I'm wasting my energy here.

You are wasting your energy because you don't want to admit you were wrong, and don't want to try having a rational discussion.
You just want a simple single answer when there isn't one.

In logic, an argument consists of 2 parts:

• Premise
• Conclusion.

Source? I've actually studied logic and was taught that arguments are supported with evidence. I think you are making more stuff up.

Even with your definition this is implied by saying they must be in support of a premise.

Well, I explained how something used as evidence in support of a premise need not be conclusive or convincing in order to be evidence. Not all logical arguments are valid or sound.

For example, is this an argument which consists of just a premise and conclusion:
If Earth is flat you shouldn't have a sharp horizon except as the edge.
Potato.
Thus Earth is round.

"Potato" is not a statement with a truth value, so it cannot be used as supporting evidence.

It shouldn't be visible on a FE, as the atmosphere would obstruct vision to it.

Please provide supporting evidence for this claim. Also, the atmosphere does at times obstruct its view. Have you ever been in dense fog?

Quote from: Logick on September 30, 2017, 06:12:52 PM

I'm still unsure as to why you believe a "sharp horizon" even suggests a round Earth.

Because you continually ignore my explanations of why.
If you are unsure perhaps you can try providing an explanation of why you should observe a sharp horizon a few km away on a FE?

I don't see any reason why the border between the Earth and the atmosphere should necessarily be blurred. Do you believe that, in FET, the Earth would curve upwards and envelop the sky or something? That's retarded.

Quote from: Logick on September 30, 2017, 06:12:52 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 01, 2017, 03:23:00 PM

It is FE BS that is not observable at all.

Didn't you just say you've looked out your window?

Yes...

So you have observed a flat Earth? lol

Quote from: Logick on September 30, 2017, 06:12:52 PM

How much more BS beyond looking out your window does FET require? Do you have any idea how complex RET is??

Yes, RET is quite simple, at least in comparison to FE BS.
FE BS requires an explanation for why the horizon appears sharp rather than a bur due to the atmosphere limiting visibility. It needs an explanation for why the horizon is further away the higher you are.

The explanation is simple. It's called perspective. It doesn't invoke complicated science and mathematics like RET does.

It requires an explanation for why the sun appears to rise and set (as do other celestial objects, and even objects on Earth where the only obstruction is water). It also requires an explanation for why these celestial objects appear to remain the same size. And with all these the explanation needs to match what is observed in reality which is consistent with RET.

The explanation is refraction. Even small children are aware of refraction. This isn't complex.

It also needs to explain the shape of Earth, why things fall, why all the planets appear to orbit the sun and so on.

So does RET. RET's explanation is so complex as to be inaccessible to the common person. This is why FET is more parsimonious.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 04:10:20 PM

I disagree. You absolutely need to counter my math and model with yours if you want to be taken seriously.

What is there to disagree.
I did counter it.
I showed what was wrong with it, with you using a great circle to determine curvature when the great circle is hidden by the horizon.
That is all I need to do to show you are wrong.

I even provided an animation showing what the curvature looks like from various angles based upon 1 type of camera.
All cameras suffer from the same kind of issues where the curve seen depends upon how you look at it.
Here is a reference which discusses some of these:
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Camera#Types_of_Projection

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 04:10:20 PM

If you're not going to do that, I suppose I'm wasting my energy here.

You are wasting your energy because you don't want to admit you were wrong, and don't want to try having a rational discussion.
You just want a simple single answer when there isn't one.

There should be a simple single answer. It should be to show me your curve if mine is wrong. I even matched up a curve based on my method to a picture taken from the ISS, and it fit perfectly. The gif shows nothing about what we're arguing.

Source? I've actually studied logic and was taught that arguments are supported with evidence. I think you are making more stuff up.

You are the one making shit up, not me. If you have studied logic you know you are spouting shit.
Here are some sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-form/
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/argument_elements.htm
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/structure.html

Evidence is only ever presented as a permise.

For example, in the general argument:
If P then Q
P
Therefore Q

Both, "If P then Q" and "P" are premises.
You can have evidence to show that P is true, but it is still presented as a premise, not evidence.

Now then, why don't you provide a source showing an argument has 3 parts:
Premise, Evidence, Conclusion?

Well, I explained how something used as evidence in support of a premise need not be conclusive or convincing in order to be evidence. Not all logical arguments are valid or sound.

No, you baselessly asserted it.
If it does not support the conclusion it is not evidence. If it contradicts the conclusion, it is definitely not evidence.


If an argument is invalid, it is illogical.
If an argument is unsound, then it is invalid (illogical) or not supported by evidence.

"Potato" is not a statement with a truth value, so it cannot be used as supporting evidence.

Thanks for agreeing with me.
Your claim that if you weren't providing evidence all you had was a premise and conclusion.
That would mean "Potato" has to be evidence.
So you have now admitted that you can present an argument which is of the form:
Premise
BS
Conclusion.

Please provide supporting evidence for this claim. Also, the atmosphere does at times obstruct its view. Have you ever been in dense fog?

Thanks for providing your own evidence.
Yes, the dense for shows what happens when visibility is limited by the atmosphere. You don't get a sharp horizon, you get a blur.
If the horizon was caused by limited visibility through the atmosphere, that is what you would expect, ALWAYS!
You would never get a sharp horizon.
The fact the horizon is sharp shows it is not due to limited visibility through the atmosphere.

I don't see any reason why the border between the Earth and the atmosphere should necessarily be blurred

Yet I have explained why, and you have even given examples of why.
If you are limited by visibility through the atmosphere, it is blurred.
The only time the FE would produce a sharp horizon is if you were viewing the edge.

Like I said, cut out the BS and provide an explanation of how a FE can produce a sharp horizon.
If you can't, you have no ground to stand upon.

Do you believe that, in FET, the Earth would curve upwards and envelop the sky or something? That's retarded.

No, I explained quite clearly that I did not. I also explained what I would expect to see if FE BS was true, the ground fading to a blur as it blended with the sky due to limited visibility through the atmosphere rather the observed sharp horizon.
What is retarded is you continually ignoring this, blatantly misrepresenting me and just spouting the same refuted crap.

So you have observed a flat Earth?

No, so I have observed something which directly contradicts predictions made based upon a FE. As such, I have observed that the FE is false.

The explanation is simple. It's called perspective. It doesn't invoke complicated science and mathematics like RET does.

Perspective does involve math, such as trig, to determine an object's apparent size based upon distance.
This indicates that as objects get further away, they appear to shrink.
It also indicates that as objects get further away, assuming they are moving parallel to the ground, their speed is reduced and their height appears lower based upon a simple formula, with them never going below the horizon.

Yet none of this matches observed reality. Instead, the sun and moon and other celestial objects appear the same size, regardless of distance, they appear to travel at the same speed, regardless of distance, and they appear to set.

So no, perspective is not the explanation for FE, perspective shows FE to be wrong.
This means FE needs complicated crap to reverse perspective and make it look like Earth is round in its place.

As such, FE is much more complex.

The explanation is refraction. Even small children are aware of refraction. This isn't complex.

Again, refraction isn't complex. In air, in general, it results in objects appearing higher than they actually for. For objects outside the atmosphere, it results in objects near the horizon appearing roughly 0.5 degrees higher.
So this goes against the FE, it makes the situation worse for FE.
So instead, FE needs to invent some BS to reverse refraction and make it much more significant.
So again, FE needs to be much more complex.

So does RET. RET's explanation is so complex as to be inaccessible to the common person. This is why FET is more parsimonious.

No. RET's explanation is quite simple.
Every point of mass will accelerate objects (proportional to the mass of the point mass) in a spherically symmetric way.
This is a simple way of stating gravity, some other ways are:
F=GMm/r^2, or a=GM/r^2.
The 1/r^2 comes from the spherically symmetric field, the G is merely a constant of proportionality. The m comes from it being an acceleration.

This is quite similar to other things, like electrostatics, F=kQq/r^2.

So that is pretty simple.
This gravitational attraction naturally causes objects to collapse into spheres.
If you have part sticking it, out will be pulled down by gravity, causing it to fall. This causes objects to adopt a roughly spherical shape, unless they are strong enough to hold up the parts that are sticking out.
The slight bulge is due to us spinning.

As for the motion of the planets, that is because all the planets, including Earth, are orbiting the sun due to gravity.

It is all quite simple.

Meanwhile, FE has no explanation and any explanation they provide needs to explain why the planets act like they are orbiting the sun, including Earth, making it much more complex.

There should be a simple single answer.

No there shouldn't.
My animation shows quite clearly that that is not the case, with the apparent curvature changing based upon the attitude of the camera, with it appearing convex and concave to different extents and flat in some cases.
You further helped state that there isn't a simple single answer based upon your comment that it is a wide angle lens. The type of lens used will also affect it.

It should be to show me your curve if mine is wrong.

I did.

I even matched up a curve based on my method to a picture taken from the ISS, and it fit perfectly.

No you didn't.
You matched a curve with a circle. There is no linking of your method.

The gif shows nothing about what we're arguing.

Yes it does.
It shows that the apparent curvature varies depending upon how you look at it.

If you would like a simple answer, then here it is:
For the ISS, the horizon is 2293 km away.
That is, in every direction (horizontally), the horizon is 2293 km away.
That means the horizon is a circle of radius 2293 km, situated below the ISS. (not sure of the exact distance).

That is not what your circle was.

If you want it more accurate:
The ISS is 400 km above Earth (with a radius of 6371 km).
That means the section of Earth from the ISS to the horizon will subtend an angle of acos(6371/(6371+400))=19.79 degrees.
That makes the radius of the circle that the horizon is sin(19.79 deg)*6371 km=2157 km.
This circle is located a distance of (R+h)-R*cos(19.79 deg)=471.4km.

Thus the horizon will appear as a circle of radius 2157 km, situation 471.4 km below the ISS.
It is oriented perpendicularly to the line going from the centre of Earth to the ISS.

That is the simple answer. What that circle looks like depends upon the camera/eye and the direction you are looking.