Yeah, call it off. Tell your team it's a no go, captain.
Well, as long as you can admit you are not willing to engage in any form of rational discussion or debate and will just cling to your fantasies?
Because that seems to be the no-go, getting you to honestly and rationally engage.
You do not get to set up a tube....LEVEL on a gradient like you show and be able to see down it as if you've somehow tilted your tube to look down that gradient.
No, but you can see down through the non-0 FOV of the tube.
Unless you have an answer to what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:
The fact that there is nothing to stop the blue-line from reaching the eye means you don't need to have the tube tilted down to see the ground.
Again, your objection is nothing more than he has clearly shown you to be wrong.
Don't be a hypocrite.
I'm not. I have provided you with rational arguments and simple questions which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong, and you continue to ignore them.
Likewise, I'm not the one just dismissing evidence and insulting people.
That would be you.
How can I answer something which is nonsensical?
A dip?
You're talking about your globe. What the hell is a dip on your globe?
That was already explained to you. It isn't nonsense at all.
You are just dismissing it as such to ignore reality.
Once more, it is the dip is the angle from eye-level, to the horizon, which is observed to be below eye level.
Does that image make it clear?
Just what is so difficult to understand?
It's not difficult to understand, it just doesn't make any sense because there's no level sight, meaning there is an angled view, no matter which way you dress it up.
So you know it makes perfect sense and are just lying?
You don't need a level sight, but again, all sights have some FOV and thus you can still see down.
The entire point is that angle. Do you understand that?
Do you understand that the purple line and grey line are not the same? Do you understand that they are separated by an angle?
That is if you had a scope that looked perfectly along the grey line (aligned with the cross hairs), in order to make it look along the purple line, again aligned with the crosshairs, you need to change the angle? That angle you need to change it by is the dip.
Just what isn't making sense about it? Not about your strawman and deflection, but about that angle of dip?
And also there's not a hope in hell that you would be angling a view and skimming the edge of a supposed globe to get your horizon
And more pathetic lies from you.
Just what stops it?
Again, do you think round objects magically don't have edges? We can do it with other balls, so why shouldn't we be able to do it with Earth?
Again, this relates to the extremely simple question and argument you have been avoiding right from the start:
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?
There's the diagram. If you want to follow it then do so.
And if he does and takes the photo will you simply admit you are wrong? Or will you continue to come up with pathetic excuses to dismiss it?
And you still ignore the simple arguments that show you are wrong.
Again, your completely non-flat Earth has no chance of matching the known regions of water/ocean on the real Earth with flat water.
A simple example is here (which as clearly established by the CSS rules of the site DOES FIT THE PAGE (so you saying/implying it doesn't is you just lying to get out of dealing with being wrong)):
This clearly shows how flat water would completely submerge the lower portions of Earth while leaving the top portions dry.
Moving it around wont help. Making it higher will result in more land being covered. Moving it lower will result in more ocean being made dry.
Even tilting it wont help, for example, you could try to tilt it to get most of the US having the correct coastline (or at least approximately), but then Aouth America would be dry, and Europe and Asia and Africa would be submerged.
The only way to try to have it match is if the water level curves to follow your non-flat Earth.
And again, you ignore the simple explanation of why your pathetic tiny ball sitting on a ball with some water on it 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.
Going to grow up and start addressing any of it honestly?