If the water is not curving up then stop using that to play, hide the buildings. You can't have it both ways.
And again you don't understand.
The water is not curving up to hide the buildings.
From the observers POV, the water curves down away from them.
This eventually hits the horizon, where their line of sight is tangent to the curving.
But it continues to curve down and the building is then in this section.
The horizon obscured the bottom portion of the building.
No curving up is required.
You have already been provided a picture of this, here it is again:
Notice how it just curves down away from the observer?
Now you might claim that it curves up away from the building, but remember, up and down is relative, just like left and right.
And yet again you ignore the simple argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
When will you decide to address it?
Your picture shows an angled view.
We are not dealing with an angled view. You know this so why are you using it?
My picture shows a level view, with a FOV of 90 degrees.
It includes 45 degrees below level and 45 degrees above.
Now how about you address the point made rather than looking for whatever excuse you can to dismiss it and pretend to have a point?
Show me the level view from left to right.
Do you mean what the person sees?
If so, that was also provided before.
If you mean a side on view showing the setup, that is what that picture is.
And again you just look for excuses rather than dealing with the argument that was presented.
Again, this is to presented this time to show how curving down can obstruct the distant buildings.
How about you stop looking for excuses and start addressing the issues?
And again you ignore the extreme simple argument showing one of your earliest claims in this thread is an outright lie.
Are you really incapable of honestly and rationally engaging with it?
If you can't show anything wrong with it this means you have no justification for your claim, and no actual objection to the RE.
Here it is again, care to address it this time:
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.
Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
No, we use curving down from your position. Not curving up.
Just like the diagram I presented.
So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.
I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?
You should be seeing that things below you (like the RE) can appear higher. That you can see the rail "below" your line of sight, even though you cannot see the part directly below you.
Thus your argument for why you shouldn't see the horizon on RE IS WRONG!
Also, while you should see the tracks converging, you should also notice that they end before they converge. Further evidence against the horizon being the convergence point.
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?
They aren't raising from the ground, visually the ground is rising.
This has also been explained to you, with you unable to show anything wrong with it so you just ignore it to pretend you weren't refuted yet again.
On a globe, there are 2 competing effects.
Perspective making things below you appear higher, and the curvature of Earth making everything appear lower the further away it is.
In a region close to you, up to some distance depending on several factors, perspective wins, causing Earth to appear to rise up towards the centre of your FOV.
In a more distant region, the curvature wins, and things just appear to get lower and lower.
The horizon is the point where the 2 effects are equal.