You see your own convergence line, like I said.
The problem is, reality is not like you repeatedly lie.
We do not see a convergence line.
We see a physical horizon that objects can go behind.
Once more, if it was convergence you would be just as capable of seeing the bottom as you would be able to see the top.
But instead of admitting it is a physical horizon, as that destroys your FE fantasy, you resort to any excuse you can.
It's what you would expect on the Earth I believe but not what you would expect on your globe.
And it has been clearly explained why it is not what you would expect on a FE, and actually what you would expect on a RE.
You have no explanation at all for why the ship appears to sink, and why buildings appear to have sunk, such that if you put a scaled down version next to them, their base appears below water level.
This makes no sense at all on a FE.
Again, if it was an issue of light, you would have a region of darkness.
If it was the atmosphere scattering the light, it would be a blur.
If it was convergence you would simply have the building/ship appear smaller, without the bottom magically obscured.
The best you have come up with to explain why it happens on a FE is that your vision is pure magic and will magically stitch out the region of darkness, even though it clearly doesn't in plenty of other cases.
Going by what you suggest, your ships hull should appear first if it's coming up your curve.
Why?
That makes no sense at all.
Consult the diagram I provided before, the highest part of the ship would come into view first, unless it is an incredibly long ship.
Remember that 8 inches per mile squared you love bringing up?
That means if you have 2 parts of the ship, where 1 is 8 inches above the other part, in order for the lower part to appear first, it needs to be 1 mile in front of the higher part.
Again, you you are presenting a strawman of the RE, not what the RE model actually indicates, and you are just making up whatever crap you feel like, with no justification at all.
Can you even attempt to justify why you think the hull should appear first? Preferably by using math or a diagram?
you cannot have curving water in a sea like that with ships and such just pushing up it.
And again you present a strawman which shows a complete lack of understanding just what "up" is.
The surface of water on the very real globe, is LEVEL!
That doesn't mean flat, it means that if you take water from one spot on this surface and move it to another, there would be no change in energy.
This means the boat is not going "up". It is going along a level surface.
Just like if you were on a merry go round, the horse in front of you would always be going left. That doesn't mean they are going closer to the centre.
As one walked towards the other, just like you walking up a slight gradient towards your friend on the other side of the gradient, you would eventually see their head if you angle your walk and keep your eyes angled.
And as the math before has shown, that angle is basically 0.
But let's put this into the perspective of what you're led to believe.
Walking up that gradient to see someone who is down the other side of it, would not happen if you walked perfectly straight and level, because that would mean you were angled backwards whilst your friend, or microbe was also angled backwards....but would be level to how you see it in normal life...as of right now.
Makes no sense.
You are right about one thing, your objection makes no sense.
You wouldn't be walking straight and level.
You would be walking level, following the curve, without turning left or right.
Yes, you would both be angled away from each other, but again, the question is how much? That would vary with distance, and when close, the angle would be basically 0.
Do you really think you would be able to see a tiny fraction of a degree tilt away from you?
Then you should have no further need to carry on.
I will continue to "carry on" by pointing out your blatant lies, while you continue to make them and refuse to justify them.
Yet again, you have ignored a simple logical argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Why not just admit you are wrong?
What do you hope to gain by repeatedly lying to everyone?
Here it is again, still just as unrefuted as before:
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.
If you follow everything I mentioned and you show me a truthful discrepancy in what I'm saying...I will definitely accept I could be wrong.
Considering you wont even accept that you are wrong when a simple logical argument clearly shows it, why would we believe you would accept you are wrong?
And even now, your answer still appears to be "no", with you instead looking for any excuse you can to dismiss the experiment.
I have done it and I know a few people that have...and there is exactly what I'm telling you of a level.
And what altitude where you when you did the experiment? How accurate was your measurement?
I'm not sat typing in this forum just to be an arse. I'm trying to get to the truth, for myself. This is where I'm at.
Stop lying,
If you were after the truth you would have dealt with the argument provided to you right near the start and either admitted that one of the very first claims you made in this thread was an outright lie, or have done the impossible and refuted the argument.
Your actions show you have no interest in the truth at all.