Have you ever seen this thing working?
How about because it appeals to dilithium, something which is impossible.
Or transparent aluminium.
It may be impossible to physically manifest
And that is the big issue.
It is not physically possible, so we know it is fiction.
You are yet to present any problem with the RE.
Your repeated, refuted, lies alleging problems are not any actual problems.
And again, you just ignore the same argument which clearly shows that you are wrong. Why?
Why not grow up and deal with this argument? Either by doing the impossible and saying what you think is wrong with it, or admitting there is nothing wrong with it and your prior statements were outright lies?
Here it is again:
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 m 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.
There's no fact in any of what you're saying.
No, that would be you.
You have been provided with plenty of facts.
These include pure logical facts based upon logical reasoning which clearly show you are wrong, as well as facts based upon observation from physcial reality which also clearly show you are wrong.
Us accepting the fact that Earth is round is not just because that is what we are taught in school, but because that is what all the available evidence clearly demonstrates.
You are the one without any facts at all.
You are the one resorting to repeatedly lying by repeatedly making false, baseless claims, and just dismissing or ignoring everything that shows you are wrong.
You are the one that clearly doesn't care about facts or truth or reality.
This gets a bit tedious.
Yes, I can see how repeatedly being refuted can get tedious for you.
have to accept the level has not been tampered with......right?
Sure, because it is far more rational to assume the entire world is conspiring against you, fabricating evidence to show you are wrong, than it is for you to be wrong?
Back in sane land, we accept that the entire world is not trying to deceive us on the shape of the world, especially as plenty of us have taken these measurements ourselves.
And again, that is why having the water level visible in the shot is far superior.
But you dismissed that as well.
Again, other than it clearly showing that you are wrong, what is your justification for dismissing this along with all the other evidence like it provided as fake?
You see how simple that is and if you are an honest person you would try it for yourself
Again, plenty of us have. YOU ARE WRONG!
How hard is it for you to understand that?
Let's just deal with that first mile.
Why just the first mile?
Why not all the way to the horizon?
We know that if we were to look out level we wouldn't see the first mm in front of our foot because we don't have a large enough FOV, but the horizon is roughly 5 km away at that height, and that is a tiny drop. A mere 2.7 arc minutes, clearly visible through all bar the tiniest of scopes.
I'm going to continue to use 2 m as the eye height.
How in the hell are you ever going to bring anything into view other than sky?
The same thing you need to bring your ground below you up into view, PERSPECTIVE (aka convergance).
See, those 2 m at a mere 0 m would be 90 degrees down.
But at 1 km it is only ~0.1 degree below level.
See, perspective (aka convergence) makes things below you appear higher than they are.
Any logical person should easily see how silly this globe is.
No, any logical person should easily see how you ignore the math and logical arguments that show you are wrong, and complete ignore perspective to pretend if something is below you can't see it.
And guess what else they see?
The fact that your argument does not need Earth to be round at all.
So lets go back to it shall we.
Rather than dealing with the first mile, we will only deal with the first cm.
So looking out level, you have no chance of viewing the ground directly below you and to 1 cm in front of that point (not unless you have a FOV of 180 degrees).
So with not seeing this ground directly below you, and it remaining the same distance below your line of sight, how in the hell are you ever going to bring anything into view other than sky?
Notice how your argument works equally well for a FE?
Thus your argument shouldn't be that the horizon refutes a RE, but that it refutes a RE and a FE.
But no, you know your argument is pure BS, and you know that perspective can make something below you appear quite close to eye level, just by it being far away.
But you choose to ignore this when it comes to the RE, because you don't give a damn about the truth and are willing to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend there is a problem for the RE.
If you disagree, feel free to tell us what magically brings the ground below you into view on your FE and why that can't work for the RE.
Because you have something to act as backing for it, such as a wall or a sky or whatever.
Yes, like the sky that surrounds Earth.
But you're not stood on any of them and looking horizontally level in front of you. So what don't you get about this?
What we don't get is why standing on it should magically change it.
I can easily simulate standing on it level, extremely close to the surface by just placing my line of sight like that.
Why should it magically change?
You would see sky and nothing else, assuming you an visualise it, which obviously you're having great difficulty doing.
Again, that has been shown to be nothing more than a blatant lie.
Why do you keep repeating it?
I even provided you with a visualisation of it to clearly show that you are wrong, and you were provided with a video also showing you are wrong.
You see ships emerging from the convergence line (horizon), not from under it or behind it.
Nope.
If that was the case it would appear as a point and grow from that, without any part being hidden.
The fact it appears from the top down shows it is coming from behind the horizon with the horizon obstructing the view to the lower portion.