I didn't ignore it because there was nothing to ignore.
Which is why you repeatedly copy and paste.
I repeatedly copy the same questions I have asked you because you continually refuse to answer them.
If you actually bothered to answer them rather than repeatedly avoiding them I wouldn't need to continually copy them.
These questions easily destroy your insane claims, which is why you refuse to answer them. You have no answer that won't show your position is pure garbage.
I will keep repeating until you answer them or stop repeating the same lies.
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?
And we know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?
Do you seriously think the word, converge means parallel?
When it is meant to be the convergence of parallel lines, YES.
That is the entire point of convergence, that parallel lines appear to converge.
The only one suggesting it is physical is you.
Most honest, rational people realise it is based upon vision and thus deal with angles and thus wouldn't claim anything as ridiculous as only being able to see 1 inch of an object through a 1 inch tube.
Something has to make that convergence
Which is simply distance making the angular size/angular separation smaller.
You don't need any magic air or anything of the like.
All you need is distance.
Or do you honestly think that if you were in a perfectly uniform medium, i.e. a constant density, then an object would visually appear to be the same size, regardless of distance to it?
When the heat was on, you backed away.
You mean when you dismissed his evidence without any valid reason, simply because it showed you were wrong, and added in a bunch of needless complexity which just serves to make the experiment harder to carry out, regardless of if one was doing it honestly or not, clearly show your objection has no merit at all and is simply because it shows you are wrong, and thus you will continue with such objections; he didn't rush out to perform your ridiculous new set up just for you to dismiss it as fake again and throw in even more conditions.
Meanwhile, he asked for a simple set of requirements from you such that when the result is provided you would simply accept it rather than dismiss it and you refused. You always want a way out, because you have no intention of ever admitting you are wrong.
The question is if this is due to cognitive dissonance, or because you are a troll.
Post all the pictures that show your experiment as you have described it, and demanded from others.
Pm me.
Why?
Why can't you post your evidence into this thread like plenty of people have asked?
Is it because you have no evidence?