You know fine well what I'm on about. Keep pretending not to if you feel the need.
Yes, you are blatantly lying about how many things work so you can pretend the photo can be easily faked, instead of it easily refuting your wild claims.
Your claim was that you could easily move around and take the picture from another angle to make the horizon not appear level, but that simply isn't true due to how convergence works and how water levels work.
You are wrong, you were shown to be wrong, and now you are making excuses.
Once more, the simple fact that the water level in the 2 tubes will only be lined up like in that photo if the camera was also at level, means the photo was taken at level, not from above or below.
If you move the camera up or down, then just like how all parallel lines work due to convergence, the water levels won't be at the same position in the photo.
If you look at it from below, the further water level will appear lower than the near water level.
If you look at it from above, the further water level will appear higher than the near water level.
Again, this is shown by those red parallel lines. The higher they start in the photo, the more downwards they appear to be going.
And the other crucial part you continue to ignore, they all still converge on the same point.
That is the entire point of the convergence point.
It doesn't matter what angle the photo is taken at, all level parallel lines still converge, and thus a line connecting the 2 water levels would still point to the horizon if it actually was the convergence point.
Once more, your dismissal of the photographic evidence has been shown to be nothing more than a desperate lie.
When you present proof you will have me snookered.
You mean like I did, which you continually ignored?
You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.
Then you clearly don't understand science.
Science deals with evidence and disproof.
Science does not deal with proof of a claim, as proof is something that can only come from deductive reasoning, while science relies upon inductive reasoning to support a hypothesis.
The closest you will get to proof of a RE is a disproof of a FE, which can be based upon evidence, such as the evidence of the irrefutable fact that the horizon is below eye level.
Or photos of Earth, showing it as ~a circle, from any angle, like those you dismiss as fake.
It seems any time you are provided with proof, you will either cry fake if you can, making up some lie as to how it was faked, or just ignore it.
You will never admit you are wrong as you have no interest in the truth.
I can't actually answer what a global Earth horizon would be like for two reasons.
1. The Earth is not a globe.
2. There would be no horizon on a sphere.
1 is not a reason. Regardless of if Earth is a particular shape or not you can still describe how it would look like.
Your point 2 relies upon that. If you truly believed point 1 and truly believed that meant you can't describe the horizon on a RE you would have stopped tehre.
So good job directly contradicting yourself yet again.
Point 2 is an outright lie, as repeatedly proven.
Again, all it takes is looking at a ball to realise a RE would have a horizon.
Once more, here is the logical argument you continue to ignore as it exposes your outright lie:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.
Just repeatedly asserting the same lie will not help you.
You need to provide a rational justification for that lie, and deal with the logical proof against it.
The fact it is a lie should be obvious when you were defeated by such simple questions that you have had to repeatedly ignore them since they were brought up.
Remember how I asked if you look down and still only see sky, and you were forced to admit that no, in that case you see ground.
Then remember how I asked about how your view changes when you go from looking straight down, seeing nothing but ground, slowly raising your head to look straight up and see nothing but sky? But then rather than answer this question which clearly shows there is a horizon, you continually deflected or just outright ignored it?
Perhaps you will answer now:
You are standing on a round Earth (or global Earth as you like to call it), looking down, seeing nothing but ground/sea.
Now you slowly start to raise your head, and continue to do so until you are looking straight up.
Just what you think you will see as you are raising your head? Make sure you start with seeing ground, and end with seeing sky, and include everything you see in the middle.
And remember, this can also be simulated with any ball.
Where you start looking at the ball, seeing nothing but the ball, and as you raise your head you see a clear line dividing your FOV, with the ball below and the surroundings above. i.e. you get a horizon.
Your global model does not match reality. Try looking over any downward curved surface with a level no fish eye lens/wide angle lens, scope just a few feet off the ground and you'll soon see you will never see the ground of that curved surface.
I have, and guess what? I can see ground.
Also, this is not an argument against their being a horizon, it is just trying to say it wouldn't be seen when looking out level.
This is the very reason I mention using the most simplest form of scope. A kitchen roll tube.
And like I have repeatedly shown, it all comes down to FOV.
If your FOV is large enough, you will see it.
The smaller the radius of the ball, the larger the FOV will need to be to see it.
For the very real RE you continually lie about, if you were standing with your eyes 2 m above its level surface, you would need to have a FOV of roughly 5.4 arc minutes.
The calculation is quite simple. The horizon will be located at an angle a such that cos(a)=r/(r+h), and the FOV to exclude the horizon, assuming it is symmetric, is 2*a.
Meanwhile, a kitchen roll tube, being generous and giving it a radius of 1 cm and a length of 20 cm, has a FOV given by 2*atan(1/20) = 5 degrees.
And any scope you use will be useless unless you can actually level it.
If you can only level it to the nearest degree, then you will still have that uncertainty and not be able to exclude the very real RE you continually lie about.