You mean 2 factors I have already accounted for which are both simply due to the curvature.
The insignificant 0.27 degree tilt you are yet to refute, and the ~ 50 m hidden which you are yet to refute.
I have already accounted for these.
The fact you are arguing a tilt, no matter what you think the degrees of that tilt are, it is a tilt on what you believe your globe is.
Again, the tilt is insignificant. You are not going to be able to notice that tilt.
meaning you could never have any view to any object in the distance
Again, this is your baseless lie you just keep on repeating.
I have a FOV. I don't just magically see along a line.
This FOV allows me to see things below and above, including the RE you hate so much.
especially turbines
Which are tall enough such that even after accounting for the tilt and the drop, they would still have a part of them which would be dead-centre of your level view.
Meaning you will most certainly be able to see them.
Again, the drop, as you have claimed is 266 ft.
The rotor diameter is 126 m or 413 ft.
The 0.27 degree tilt will reduce the apparent height by such an insignificant amount, the level of precision in that number is not enough to see it.
If you provide additional precision and have the rotor diameter being 413.386 ft, then the apparent height of the rotor would be 413.381 ft.
A tiny difference due to the tiny tilt.
And then, if the rotor itself was skimming the water, that would place it ~147 ft ABOVE your line of sight.
So it would certainly be visible, no matter how much you want to pretend it wont be.
How could an object which has the top well above your level line of sight, and the bottom well below, NOT be visible?
Yet again, simple logic and math shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
So the globe isn't what is dead in the water. Your outright lies about it are.
And like always, you keep on avoiding simple, trivial questions which expose these lies.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
Tell me what you do with your equatorial mount and where you place it on Earth, then run me through what you're seeing that proves a globe.
That's all I'm asking seeing as you brought it up.
You were already provided with that and just ignored it.
To put it simply, you align it such that it can rotate about an axis parallel to Earth's axis. This then allows you to track an object by simply rotating about that axis.
The fact that this axis various with latitude, and so easily allows you to track objects, shows that either Earth or the sky rotates about an axis, and that the surface of Earth is at a different angle relative to this axis with latitude.
While this doesn't prove Earth itself spins (as no purely visual observation like this can), it does show it is a globe.