And yet again you ignore the extremely simple question that shows beyond any doubt you are wrong.
This shows just how effective this question is at destroying your BS.
Once more:
You start looking straight down towards a round 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?
Until you have an answer, this confirms the RE does have a horizon and you claiming it doesn't is wilful rejection of reality.
Nope. As long as the set up in the diagram is adhered to.
Again, how does the extra tube, and the vertical plumb in any way help establish that the setup is level?
Why do you need all the extra distance?
The plumb line ensures that the two tubes cannot be set up without level.
No, it doesn't, because it is vertical.
Do you understand the difference between vertical and horizontal?
Even if you attach a crosshair to it, that gives you alignment left to right, not front to back.
Again, it is just another needless complication that solves nothing.
If you want something to actually confirm level, then like has already been suggested and provided, use water.
You want a rectangle made of tubes, partially filled with water, where the water is free to flow around the rectangle.
Then hold it up so that 2 of the tubes are vertical, and the water will self-level. That applies even if the tubes are at an angle, the water will still self-level.
Yep, people have a field of view. They also have a tunnel vision filed of view, which is what we're dealing with, which you're struggling to understand.
No, with this diagram and line of inquiry we are dealing with the measured angle of dip to the horizon. Which you're struggling to understand.
Again, do you accept that there is a difference in angle between the purple and grey lines? If so, THAT IS YOUR DIP!
If not, then considering they cross, why aren't they the same line?
Just what is so hard to understand?
But you do also seem to fail to understand tunnel vision as well. Even with tunnel vision, your FOV is not 0.
I'm not ignoring anything.
You sure seem to be.
You repeatedly ignore the simple question that shows beyond any doubt that the RE must have a horizon.
Likewise you ignored the simple logical argument that shows not only does the RE have a horizon, for simple observations close to sea-level it will appear to be at roughly eye-level, and easily appear through a level tube/scope.
Likewise you repeatedly ignore a simple question with a diagram to show you don't get magic tunnel vision where you magically only see 1 inch of any object.
Likewise you ignore the to-scale diagram showing how even through a small tube you can see the ground, relatively close and thus it wouldn't magically prevent you from seeing it.
Likewise you repeatedly ignore how all your nonsense demands are doing is needlessly complicating the setup and adding extra length, while in no way ensuring that the setup is level, and thus is just a pathetic excuse to dismiss the evidence showing you are wrong.
Likewise you repeatedly ignore a simple explanation of why your strawman of water on a ball on a ball in no way refutes the RE.
Likewise you repeatedly ignore the diagram and explanation of how your non-flat Earth cannot have the oceans match what is observed in reality with a flat water level.
Likewise you repeatedly ignore how level water proves the globe.
Likewise you are now ignoring the explanation of dip on the globe and instead pretending it makes no sense at all.
The question really shouldn't be what are you ignoring, it should be what aren't you ignoring.
And that is quite simple, things which are not directly related to the topic, as they don't show you are wrong, they just show how dishonest you are.
You're massively neglecting the very thing that creates the horizon
And that is another thing you are ignoring, the very thing that creates the horizon.
Once more, as we know it does not vary depending on optics, it has absolutely nothing to do with resolution.
As we can produce a clear image of it (rather than only ever getting blurry images), we know it has nothing to do with limited visibility through the atmosphere.
As it is only a finite distance away, we know it has nothing to do with perspective.
The only adequate explanation of the horizon (i.e. an explanation which actually works to explain what causes it) is that Earth is round, and the horizon is the point where your line of sight is tangent to it.
This also explains why the bottom of distant objects are obscured and the object appears to have sunk. Because the curvature continues past the horizon and thus an object further away than the horizon has its base at an angle below the horizon.
If it was the atmosphere obscuring the view, you would have a blurry region rather than a clear horizon, and the bottom of the object (falsely assuming Earth is flat) would be in that region of blurriness.
If it was just perspective, the bottom would still be clearly visible, just as well resolved as the top.
Your globe would offer nothing more than sky on a level and nothing more than ground on a downward angle.
As clearly shown by the diagram you chose to ignore, the fact that the globe has a DIP means you can look down and still see sky. You would only see only ground when your FOV doesn't include the horizon and instead is entirely below it.
And likewise, by another diagram you chose to ignore, the ability to see ground through a level FOV depends upon the size of that FOV, the radius of Earth, and your elevation above Earth.
But if we completely ignore reality and just accept your factually incorrect statements, you have a big problem. It is self contradictory with any FOV greater than 0.
Time for another diagram for you to ignore:
This shows 2 FOVs.
The one shown with black boundaries is a perfectly level FOV.
The one shown in grey is a FOV on a downwards angle.
The region shown in blue is only included in the level FOV, and thus you only see sky.
The region shown in green is only included in the downwards FOV, and thus you only see ground.
But what about the red region? It is included in both FOVs.
So do you only see sky, making your statement that you only see ground through a downwards FOV false?
Or do you only see ground, making your statement that you only see sky through a level FOV false?
Or do you see both ground and sky, making both of those statements of yours false?
And before you object to their size, it doesn't matter.
A level FOV, which is not 0, will ALWAYS include some portion looking below level.
This can be included in a downwards FOV.
If you just ignore the top section of the level FOV, that gives a downwards FOV.
The only way to not have anything below level in a level FOV is for that FOV to have a size of 0.
The globe is absolute utter nonsense.
No, only your pathetic denial of it.