Flooded?
Yes, flooded. Remember this image I provided quite some time ago for one hypothetical water level:
Any chance of making this image fit the forum?
Yes. It automatically fits as it has a default width of 100%.
Thus it automatically scales with your screen.
Now quit with the BS distraction and actually address the issue.
It doesn't matter where you place your flat water level, you CANNOT get the regions of Earth covered in water and not covered in water to match reality.
Your model predicts a massive annular ocean separating the north from the far south
That simply doesn't match reality at all.
And again, either clearly explain what is wrong with my explanation, or admit that your strawman in no way refutes the RE:
Once more, Earth is not some small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
It is a massive ball in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
If it is in free fall and inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object then, at the surface of the ball, the tidal acceleration towards that much more massive object (the gravitational acceleration towards the object at the surface of the ball, minus the gravitational attraction at the centre of mass of the ball) is larger than the gravitational attraction to the ball, and thus the water will pull away from the ball.
If it is not in free fall, then instead of dealing with the tidal force, you need to deal with the entire gravitational attraction, and if the much more massive object is close enough, then the gravitational attraction to it is greater than the gravitational attraction to the ball and again the water will pull away from the ball towards the much more massive object.
And again, either answer the question (and thus eventually admit the RE does have a horizon), or admit the RE does have a horizon:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Your continued deflection/avoidance of these simple issues show you know you are spouting BS.
Any chance of making it fit in the post?
Any chance of being honest for once?
Again, it does automatically.
There is no need for me to do anything to "make it fit"
If you need more detail, this site has a CSS.
In this css you will find that it specifies all elements of the type "img" (i.e. image elements) have a property called "max-width" set to 100%
This means that images will be no more than 100% wide, unless you specifically do something to make it larger which overrides this CSS rule.
For example, when I make the browser as thin as I can using chrome, this is what it looks like:
Now stop with the blatant lies and deal with the massive issues in them.
Deal with the fact that your fantasy Earth has no chance of matching reality with flat water.
Deal with the fact that your attempt to refute the RE with water on a ball on a ball, in no way refutes the RE and instead is a pathetic strawman.
Deal with the simple question, which when answered honestly will show that the RE does have a horizon.
I've already explained what you did.
No, you didn't. You blatantly lied about him to dismiss the evidence which shows you are wrong.
If you're not game playing then do the experiment set out.
So you can then dismiss that as a con-job as well and demand more pathetic BS?
I'm not attacking you, I'm merely handing you back what you're giving out.
He is giving evidence which shows you are wrong.
You are just insulting him and dismissing his evidence as faking. Giving back what he gave out would be you going and taking your own picture showing how we magically can't see the ground through a level tube, and how we magically only see 1 inch of any distant object.
You have no justification for why you claim he is being dishonest, other than the fact that it shows you are wrong.
That is attacking him.
You can see farther because you are looking through less dense atmosphere on that angle.
The change in density is insignificant for such a small change in elevation and wouldn't change how far you can see.
Also note that is isn't just a case of seeing further, but you also see more of objects that are partially obscured by the RE.
It's the very reason why crows nests and observation towers are used and also, lighthouses.
No, the reason is the curvature of Earth.
Ask your friend, silhouette, he wanted stuff adding in.
Likely so you then don't latter add in more BS you need to just dismiss whatever is provided.
No way in hell could you see down that gradient if you have the tube, level.
Again, that is your blatant lie that he refuted.
You are dismissing him because he showed you are wrong.
Again, simple logic shows you can.
Remember this:
The FOV and gradient determine if it can be seen.
If the gradient is a curve instead, the height also plays a role.
And your only "objection" is to repeatedly assert the same pathetic lie.
Yeah I'm calling you out...and for good reason.
No, you are insulting and attacking him for a horrible reason, because he showed you were wrong.